Deletion of Simplilearn (2nd nomination)

Comment: Lots of different takes and confusion above but in my opinion, much of the confusion above stems from 2 things. The first, some editors are looking at the wrong guidelines and putting far too much emphasis on . RS is probably the lowest standard to reach. The correct guideline for an organization is  and . Second, nobody has mentioned  and the fact that a reference must pass both CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND - it isn't an either/or situation. Just about all of the references in that table above fails ORGIND. For example, https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/322387 this from entrepreneur.com recites verbatim an interview with the CEO and has no "Independent Content" - a clear failure of ORGIND. It doesn't matter in the slightest if a journalist puts their name on the article or not - that doesn't make the content "Independent Content". According to the ORGIND definition for Independent Content, the article must contain ''"original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject''"''. Not a single one of those references meets the NCORP criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: Promotional article, lacks  from third-party sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: This is an interesting discussion and raises right questions - that if there are regular announcements by companies about ongoing activities, partnership et al - do they count towards notability or not. I am also trying to establish  here. There is consensus that the book counts towards notability; so that's one. Now let's see if we can find two more. What do we think about Forbes article https://www.forbesindia.com/article/edtech-special/the-huge-investment-opportunity-in-edtech/57733/1? It came in print and is written by staff writer. What about https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/simplilearn-sees-huge-demand-from-professionals-to-upgrade-skills-120083000763_1.html? Written by a staff writer. Business standard is surely reliable. It has a lot of quotes from the company but it also discusses the company and activities outside what they are saying about themselves. Another one written by a staff writer https://www.livemint.com/Companies/LFqpcN2Ybs8dVvcATDEC0I/What-next-for-education-startup-Simplilearn.html at Live Mint which looks alright
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:THREE)

Comment: Mainly per . These sources are relatively flimsy, and even those which might appear superficially reliable smell like churnalism. Sources do not explain ''why'' this is notable, they merely list routine business "partnerships" and similar buzzwords. The mention of a Stevie Award is an especially bad sign
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)