Deletion of NYX Cosmetics

Comment: I am concerned that some good editors are not reading the sources I linked to, and are jumping to conclusions while ignoring . The AFD nominator  asserts that news articles in Forbes, the LA Times and other news sources are mere advertisements, when they are clearly editorial content rather than adverts. The nominator also asserts that the Forbes writer, who Forbes says is a "staff writer" is  " literally a hired freelancer for the company itself" as are all other writers who have published about the company. Reliable sources should not be so casually dismissed. If the company is notable, then any promotional text in the article can be removed. I will have a go at that, and I urge others to take a look at the article in a few hours
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The company has had many instances of significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources such as th LA Times, http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2016/06/01/toni-ko-nyx-cosmetics-loreal-sale-richest-women/#376add0f5ac0 Forbes and Bloomberg, easily satisfying .  Little if anything in the article cannot be sourced to such sources. The company was sold in 2014 to L'Oreal for five hundred million dollars. The nomination smacks of IDONTLIKEIT
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: I was asked to take a second look at this AFD.   I've re-reviewed the sources and reviewed the current opposing claims.  The promotionalism claims are unconvincing and at times simply illogical.   My '''Keep''' vote remains because of the fact that this company passes  and  due to significant coverage in reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORP)