Deletion of Forever (website) (2nd nomination)

Comment: Bad-faith nomination of an article that was listed by the same user four months ago (a user who was Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed_deletion-related_topic_ban_for_User:Light2021|recently been blocked over abuse of the deletion process). The topic is still is notable as it was during the last AfD. Plenty of non-trivial coverage from sources that easily meet , including Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Detroit Free Press, and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: It should be kept because it meets |Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. It is as simple as that and none of the other issues belong to this discussion. Again, on how does it meet the required standard, in my opinion, has been demonstrated by multiple reliable sources currently cited in article and available on a simple web-search. Additionally, I fail to notice any convincing argument in favour of deletion. (I'm very likely to not answer any comment for the time being
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I do not find the sources presented here meeting  so than an NPOV article can be written about the subject. The local sources also fail  and are insufficient for notability. The coverage is routine, "local company does well" content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:AUD)