Deletion of Crik Nutrition

Comment: There is a claim of notability in the second sentence, about their being "one of the first companies in North America to develop and commercialize insect protein powder based on crickets". This claim is supported by two citations.  The first contains the passage "Crik Nutrition is a new company with a one of kind product in North America;" the second contains the passage "Other companies that have created cricket-based food products include Crik Nutrition, which has formulated a cricket protein powder, and Six Foods, which has created cricket-based chips called Chirps."  The claim is not firmly "we were the first" but "we were among the first".  There is also the matter of an apparent change of sourcing which I've documented in the Products-section, and there might be a story there about sourcing crickets and making powder vs. sourcing powder, which would be an interesting strategic business shift if it could be established.  I think this is on the edge of , but I'd tip that over to acceptance based on anticipation of future emerging activities / information.  It's worth noting that the number of firms involved in insect-based food production is substantial, meaning that Crik is by no means a pioneer in the field as a whole (see Category talk:Insect food companies); it might turn out that they are among the early movers in the supplement area - divorcing the form from the source (ala chicken nuggets :-) ). --User:Ceyockey
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: agree with HighKing's analysis: in summary  is not met. Would further point out that Forbes.com/sites (with "contributor" byline, which is the case here) is listed as non-RS at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:RSPS)