Deletion of GoRuck

Comment: The available sources do not pass the high bar of , which was put in place to precisely to prevent the kind of underhanded promotional editing that it now transpires created this article. And to think, I was going to ask for their backpack for Christmas! &ndash;&#8239
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Easily passes  as there are lots more sources out there such as ''http://time.com/4796475/goruck-dday-normandy-beach/ Time magazine
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: does not meet  / ; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions and / or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:SPIP)

Comment: coverage in blogs, PR campaigns, corporate web pages, and student newspapers, none of which satisfy the sourcing requirements at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: u|Kvng}} It is a blog reference as a well. It was a simple mistake. Its written by a Niantic employee, who likes the kit, and linked to the site. It is entirely non RS, and not acceptable per WP policies  and /BLOG. The time article ref which is now in the article, is a poor source as its more about the beach landings, as it is about the company
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT||WP:NOTBLOG)

Comment: The reason why Cunard's wall-of-text is harmful to the process is because Cunard is invariably incorrect in his assessment of the sources and ignores  which is the actual applicable guideline for organizations and corporations. Cunard quotes ''significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources'' as a catch-all for each and every one of the 13 references and then goes on to selectively quote from each one, while often willfully ignoring parts of the reference that show that the reference does not meet the criteria for establishing notability. And I'm pretty sick of this behaviour as it invariably leads to busy editors assuming that Cunard has done a bunch of in-depth analysis and invariably agree with his poor analysis
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: It is still a delete for me. I dont see any distinction between a company A, and a company A holding events. It is still covered by . There is no standalone rationale or merit for an events article, as it will still be the company name at the top of the article, so NCORP still applies
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)