Deletion of Isola (Company)

Comment: I am still working on improving the article and added one more reference that meets . The articlehttps://finansavisen.no/nyheter/industri/2021/04/22/7659671/bjornar-gulliksen-og-ketil-johansen-i-isola-har-gjennomsnittlig-lonnsomhet-pa-1-6-prosent in Finansavisen meets '''significant coverage''' (the primary topic in the article is Isola and the limited profitability over 10 years), is '''independent''' (There is no relationship between Finansavisen or the author of the news article and Isola. The article covers investigation and analysis done by the author which leads to the authors published opinion that "there are only profit crumbs left from roofing" - translated from "Tjener smuler på tette tak"), it is from a '''reliable source''' (Finansavisen is a mainstream newspaper, and the article is written by https://www.linkedin.com/in/anders-horntvedt-7725b51aa/ Anders Horntvedt who is one of their journalists), and it is a '''secondary source''' (it provides the author's own analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of the input from the primary source
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: lacks independent coverage to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Fails . It is just a run-of-the-mill company with run-of-the-mill coverage, which is why its reference section is longer then the text of the article. There is no sustained independent  to be found
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per . Ask and ye shall receive. {{u|CaliViking}} and {{u|Eastmain}} have both added and refined references in a range of languages. They include a couple of references I found, and a fair few I didn't. There are some behind paywalls (especially the Varden ones) and while that doesn't invalidate them as sources, it does make it challenging for editors to review them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with |in-depth information on the company and containing |independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: doesn’t meet  as far as I can see. Not convinced by the sources (some are primary sources such as the company’s site or websites selling the company’s products). When the references are the longest section of the article it raises the  alarm for me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:REFBOMBING)

Comment: per , thanks to improvements made since the deletion nomination by {{u|Eastmain}} and {{u|CaliViking
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)