Deletion of Billingham Bags (2nd nomination)

Comment: Companies need to pass . Over here, the references seem to be mostly in blogs and some sources of questionable reliability and independence. If the company was truly notable, there would be more sources about it. The passing mentions in sources unfortunately do not show notability. I may change my opinion if reliable sources can be shown to have covered this. (I myself wasn't able to find any though
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: I don't see that any of the current references constitute the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" required by , and the above Google searches don't appear to give anything better. Of the existing refs, the first and most used (now a deadlink; http://web.archive.org/web/20150921010004/http://www.pedlars.co.uk/pedlarsworld/stories/an-interview-with-harry-billingham/ archived version) is on the site of a company which the article itself says Billingham has collaborated and which (used to) sell their products, so isn't an Wikipedia:independent source|independent source. The ''Telegraph'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/hubs/heavenandhell/4175373/Richard-Hammonds-heaven-and-hell.html Q&A with Richard Hammond doesn't tell us anything about the company, merely that he always carries one of their bags. The other refs are nearly all product reviews which give no significant coverage of the company as opposed to the particular product under review (and several are personal blogs). The only ref that appears to come close is https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4340088218/billingham-marks-40-years-of-history "Billingham marks 40 years of history" in Digital Photography Review, but that's only contains three sentences about the company, clearly based on material in its 2013 catalogue, so isn't really an independent source and certainly doesn't seem sufficient by itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)