Deletion of American Industrial Partners

Comment: Once again, Cunard fails to understand "intellectually independent" reference.  states ''Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.'' I am unable to find anything in those articles that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject while still meeting SIGCOV/CORPDEPTH. I am also unable to locate any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. That said, there are a number of categories of companies that are not "sexy" and don't get written up and would probably be "notable" in their own spheres of expertise. Unfortunately, unless "exceptions" are discussed and  agreed, these companies fall under NCORP. This topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: the sources provided fail to meet   and , being largely routine news or rewarmed press releases. I don't see much independent analysis, such as "But back-to-basics dealmaking has helped American Industrial quietly assemble an impressive portfolio of manufacturers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: article fails  due to a lack of in-depth coverage; much of the information in the article comes from trivial mentions, and a search turns up more of the same. The nom sums it up well by calling this "routine coverage", which also leads me towards feeling the article fails the wider  criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Being "profiled" and receiving "significant coverage" must also be accomplished in such a way that the that content includes ''original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject'' as per . Please note especially the phrase *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Given that both of those references rely extensively on interviews with the founders or with officers connected with their company, any statements plucked at random that aren't in quotes does 1) not mean that those statements are the opinion of the author 2) those statements weren't originally provided by the company officers and 3) those statements are significant for the purposes of establishing notability. From reading each article, it is clear that the statements you've provided are not clearly attributable to anyone but the context is important and since those statements are often following or are followed by statements attributable to a connected source, it is entirely reasonable that so too are your selected quotes. Certainly there is nothing to indicate anything to the contrary and most article are clear when information is arriving from a different source and most journalists are clear when they are voicing their own opinions.  Also, your selected quotation from the Roanoake Times is in relation to AEA - an entirely different company. Everything written about AIP is attributed to Steve Schaefer of RBX - one of AIP's acquisitions
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND)