Deletion of LearningRx

Comment: u|learningrx}} et al.) - The New York Times piece is a good ref. Certainly more than just a mention. However, the specific guideline that applies is  which includes the line {{tq|"A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization."}} I would extend that to say that two sources is likewise rarely sufficient. Aside from the Entrepreneur piece linked above I'm seeing largely local stories and PR-based pieces, but as of yet not more than that. I'm leaning keep as it is, but another good one would make it easier. --&mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: fails . Comments above from
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: I am pretty skeptical about the claims of this company, but based on policy, I think we should keep it.  First, the ''New York Times'' article is about LearninRX and compares it to the other three companies in this area: Lumosity, Cogmed, Posit Science. Second, there is an in-depth article on the start of the company in an article http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-208057875.html  via HighBeam from the ''Star Tribune''. Third, there is evidence that this topic and also company is under scientific scrutiny http://peterhbrownpsych.com/category/education/.  So, I'm inclined to conclude that it does meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)