Deletion of SmartRecruiters

Comment: I disagree with both above comments. This article meets GNG easily and that can be proved by a simple google search where there are 40-50 third party websites with information on the company. A few of the sources here are TIME, Huffington Post, Fast Company, INC., and CIO. The links to the sources can be found at the bottom of their homepage (https://www.smartrecruiters.com/). There's in-depth third party information on at least four of these independant sources. In fact, every competitor that they have of similar scale has a Wikipedia page i.e. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Software, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobvite). I think while the article is somewhat of a stub, it meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/03/14/smartrecruiters-unveils-artificial-intelligence-recruiting-assistant-hiring-scorecard/ This ''Forbes'' article about the subject was written by a  "Vice-President and Principal Analyst at Atherton Research, a global technology consulting and intelligence firm helping clients plan, build and deliver successful go-to-market strategies," which makes it rather |suspicious for bias.  But https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/06/19/top-entry-level-skills-and-industries/#73c331b673bf this one, written by magazine staff, goes on extensively about SmartRecruiters and cites its data work. Yes, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170905005296/en/CORRECTING-REPLACING-SmartRecruiters-Releases-Free-Recruiting-Software this report on ''BusinessWire'' is not more than a press release,  but then ''The Wall Street Journal'' https://www.wsj.com/articles/smartrecruiters-raises-30m-1467286209 reports on the company's IPO, which it does not do for every Tom, Dick and Harry|TD&H. All in all, the citations that count enable the subject to barely yet clearly meet the required notability criteria for a corporation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO)

Comment: None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails  and . Topic fails GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: While there are 201 articles on Factiva, they do not meet , the content supplied is not independent of the source, or the source is not WP:RS. {{strikethrough|'''Keep''' Based on the forbes and techcrunch articles... but only just
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: one "good" source is from Forbes sites, basically blog hosted in Forbes, other is all "according to press release" with the minimum of analysis. As our new  guideline says, "A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant."; notes about forbes sites: "Most of such posts are company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials" and so on. Doesn't meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGCRIT||WP:NCORP)