Deletion of Reddico

Comment: per  and . One of many, perhaps thousands, of marketing firms  created in the past 10 years
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:GNG)

Comment: FT1000 doesn't work as  explicitly says top lists aren't good sources. Same for the rest that the user above me cites. Who's sentiment about the sources and general lack of reliable sources I totally agree with
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: I am unable to locate any |significant coverage with |in-depth information on the company and containing |independent content. Not a single reference I have read even comes close to the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: the Financial times would have be a solid reference if it had written anything at all about the company. But it's just a list, showing that they went from 13 to 18 employees, which is completely normal for a small company that is just getting started. The other sources aren't much better, the greatplacetowork source says: "We’re an award winning digital marketing agency," so that's just the company talking about itself. Deloitte is not an independent, reliable news source, they're an accounting firm, or a "professional services network". perrysaccountants is also an accountant, not a reliable source for news. Per: /P The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to other British tabloids, such as Daily Mail or The Sun. Kent online seems a little better, but I'm not convinced that local news from Tonbridge (population 40,356) is the kind of significant coverage  requires: attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability ().  Forbes "contributors" are not reliable sources. Wirehive is a "a specialist cloud technology partner for agencies". Winning an award like "Most Respected Digital Agency" from wehive isn't the least bit remarkable. With categories like: "Best Use of Search", "Consumer Site of the Year", "B2B Site of the Year", "Agency Team of the Year",  "Agency Leader", "Rising Star", "Not For Profit Site of the Year", "Digital Experience of the Year", "Brand Impact of the Year", "Performance Marketing Campaign", "Agency For Good", "Best Data Driven Campaign", "Digital Transformation", "Best Content Driven Campaign", "One to Watch", "Best Use of Emerging Technologies", it's wonder that was an agency that didn't win something. A local newpaper and a tabloid does not "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" make
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NCORP||WP:AUD)

Comment: per nom. I don't see why unusual working practices means notability. That it warranted attention from a SME doesn't mean anything per . This all seems like puffery to me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)