A couple of things that sort of gave off spammy vibes: the term "solutions" is something that comes across as promotional. The reason is that this is a very, very common PR term and can be seen as something that is somewhat subjective. What is a solution to some might not be to others. It'd be best to rephrase this somewhat. I've cleaned up some of the article for you and tried to give a few other sources that would be usable. The thing to remember is that the sources absolutely cannot be from your company as far as notability giving goes. Press releases, regardless of where they're posted, can't show notability. WP:PRIMARY sources in general should be avoided whenever possible. Also, terms such as "making the company one of North America’s leading" is also considered to be promotional. There really isn't a good way to put this into an article. It's considered to be a phrase that is touchy even when you try to put it in an article about something that's considered to be the most recognizable brand of its type, such as the iPod. The reason is that this phrase is also considered to be a PR buzzword and should be avoided.

Now I've removed the sources you'd put in the article because they were press releases, which you can't use for the reasons I stated above. The thing to remember about articles and sources is that even if the company has a ton of hits in Google, you can't use WP:GHITS as a rationale for keep. Sometimes those come back as false positives or unusable in some way, plus if an article is considered to be something that would need to be nuked in order to write an article about, the article can be deleted for those reasons. Since there is some coverage over the AdBrite stuff, I don't think that there's any harm in letting you work on it in your userspace for right now as long as you make sure to get someone to look over it before you put it in the mainspace. I can't guarantee that it will pass, though. Oh- another thing is that Alexa ratings don't count towards notability. A good rating can mean that it'll gain more coverage, but that's never really a guarantee. Sometimes some of the most popular sites end up never gaining a lot of or any coverage in RS. Anyway, here's a link to the userspace page: User:Dankind/SiteScout Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SiteScout Logo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:SiteScout Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SiteScout is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SiteScout until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:SiteScout Inc. company logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply