Deletion of RFP360

Comment: The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per  is for multiple sources (at least two) of |significant coverage with |in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing |"Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include ''original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject''. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. scope_creep above has explained why Forbes sites is not regarded as meeting  and I will add by saying that part of the website has no editorial oversight and falls into the same category as a blog, which is why is fails as a reliable source. Topic fails GNG/
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:RS||WP:NCORP)

Comment: The editor has updated the article in attempt to address . However the two sources similar run of the mill  business news
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:MILL)

Comment: it seems to me that the news coverage sourced in the article (particularly the feature article in Forbes) is evidence of passing both  and .  Additionally, the sources in the article point toward passing  and other sources online (like this one at https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2020/02/19/557676.htm insurance journal) support that position.  A question for the nominator-please provide more than |just a policy and give a little more detail why you believe the article fails those two points
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:GNG||WP:JUSTAPOLICY)