Deletion of NZXT (2nd nomination)

Comment: If* the article was about a *product*, then you'd be correct. The guidelines in  are for either organizations *or* products/services. The article is written about the company and not about any specific product/service, therefore the criteria for product notability doesn't apply
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Meets  in light of . The listed reviews (particularly the ones from reliable sources ''PC Magazine'' and ''PC Gamer'') are in-depth, and not the trivial/routine pieces excluded by DEPTH. —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:PRODUCTREV||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: fails  / . SOurces offered above are passing mentions and / or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:SPIP)

Comment: Despite the amount of work by Cunard in finding sources, it appears that the sources are mainly about the products and not about the company itself. There are no sources showing that the company has received significant coverage. The article topic is the company. I believe that should the article be changed so that the topic is one of their better known products, it would likely pass. But this article fails  and GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Fails  and . Run of the mill, business news, reviews and passing mentions of dubious notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH)