Deletion of Reedsy

Comment: There are numerous |reliable sources with the company as the main focus, such as ''https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/69508-reedsy-grows-launches-online-book-editor-tool.html Publishers Weekly'', ''https://www.popsci.com/publish-your-own-ebook#page-6 Popular Science'', ''https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/this-is-how-to-write-and-publish-book-without-giving-up-your-day-job-a3590666.html The Evening Standard''. TechCrunch is a reliable source which covers Reedsy in-depth https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/07/reedsy-now-lets-you-print-your-book-on-blurb-in-no-time/ here and https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/16/reedsy-launches-book-editor-to-seamlessly-turn-your-draft-into-a-book/ here. It gets a full article treatment in ''https://www.forbes.com/sites/eshachhabra/2017/08/31/london-startup-uses-technology-to-open-up-the-world-of-book-publishing/#4713219b6197 Forbes magazine''. Previous discussion about a COI issue are of no relevance here. Easily meets the |general notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: The sources are lacking in independence and depth, which is a reflection of the company's low notability. Even the Guardian piece is pretty shallow. The subject fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)