Deletion of Lokring Technology

Comment: WP:V|verifiability is not at issue here.  It is a question of whether inclusion criteria are met.  Please see 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of an article are related to, but separate from |verifiability.  While the information and references added into the article may be "credible and informative data on the company", what is needed to establish that an article should be on Wikipedia is whether the company has received significant coverage in multiple independent |reliable sources.  The reliable sources would be things like newspapers and magazines.  Although not all Wikipedia editors would agree with me, in that list I would include trade magazines or specialty media.  I have reviewed the sources, and I do not believe they are sufficient to establish that article is justified.  My analysis of the sources is below
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: I'm not understanding how the USCIB piece is . The documentation is not validating that Lokring is a real company, but rather validating that they have ran their own tests on Lokring's products and are sharing their results with the public
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)

Comment: and '''Comment'''. I voted to Delete the William Lennon article, and stand by that. On the company, the new links barely pass in my view, and there is a bit of  such as in the USCIB piece. But, the longevity of the firm is real, and coverage may be harder to find simply because its technology is specialized
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)