Deletion of Helperbird

Comment: I agree that the topic, as currently written, does not meet web content notability. Per : "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I would support either deletion or giving the authors another try by moving it to Draft space, in case it actually does meet notability and simply needs more qualifying sources and content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: Not seeing how  (for the software/plugins),  (for the organisation that builds the software) or  (in general) are met. In terms of NWEB, it is unclear how this plugin is any more notable than any other browser add-on. In terms of NORG, there is limited |depth of coverage on the company itself (coverage like the https://www.forbes.com/profile/robert-james-gabriel/ Forbes entry do not focus on the company, and are of a "listicle" type that wouldn't seem to confer notability on every member of the list). In terms of GNG, a search of the newspapers of record in Ireland (like https://www.irishtimes.com/search/search-7.4195619?q=%22Helperbird%22 in the Irish Times and https://www.independent.ie/search/?q=%22Helperbird%22 in the Irish Independent) we see only a handful (3) of entries. And in most of those the subject is not the primary topic. Personally I would also have COI and PROMO concerns
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NWEB||WP:NORG||WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH)