Deletion of Technical Illusions

Comment: Marginally notable tech company.  After reading all of the linked sources included within the article, I believe that the subject probably satisfies the specific notability guideline for companies per  and the general notability guidelines per , but contrary to some of the outraged "keep" comments above, it's a relatively close call.  Why?  Because most of the linked sources are about the subject company's product(s), not primarily or even significantly about the company itself.  This is an article about the subject company, not its product(s); therefore, I am looking for significant (i.e., not trivial, not , not incidental) coverage of the company, its officers, its financial backers, its finances, its history, its long-term prospects, etc., and not solely about its product(s).  If the product is notable, then perhaps the product should have a stand-alone Wikipedia article, but the subject company must be notable in its own right per our notability guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:GNG||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: Is there a policy-based reason for the requested deletion? I am not seeing one in the nom.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Technical_Illusions&oldid=622542629 Per  the standard of notability would seem to be met, because of the existence of independent sources. If there is some other basis for deletion though, perhaps the nominator could provide it? In the long run, if the company never creates a product, perhaps this article should be merged into the Jeri Ellsworth article, but in the meantime it seems to be adequately sourced
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)