Deletion of Richard Gray's Power Company (2nd nomination)

Comment: According to https://hometheaterreview.com/richard-grays-power-company/ homeatheaterreview it is/was "One of the most interesting success stories in high-end audio and home theater... Gaining a cult following throughout the audio underground" - that site has a https://hometheaterreview.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=%22Richard%20Gray%27s%20Power%20Company%22&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20&page=2 bunch of reviews but may not be a sufficiently RS. ''Stereophile'' has a https://www.stereophile.com/powerlineaccessories/255/index.html large review in 2000 and https://www.stereophile.com/content/richard-grays-power-company-400s-ac-line-conditioner-michael-fremer-november-2004 another in 2004 -- both negative. There's a number of other in-depth reviewshttp://stereotimes.com/acc033100.shtmlhttp://www.soundstagenetwork.com/revequip/richard_grays_power_company.htmhttps://www.avrev.com/home-theater-ac-power/ac-power/richard-grays-power-company-1200s-power-conditioner-2.htmlhttps://www.audaud.com/audaud/MAY01/EQUIP/equip1MAY01.html. There's also evidence of some kind of reviews in ''Jazz Times'', ''Sound & Vision'', and ''The Absolute Sound''.https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbm=bks&q=%22richard+gray%27s+power+company%22, which suggests a likelihood of further print coverage. There's not a huge amount on the company itself to clearly meet CORPDEPTH, but there appears enough reviews to satisfy GNG of at least their 400S and  applies for manufacturers. By analogy to NCREATIVE, etc, coverage of a body of work should be considered as evidence for notability even if coverage of the creator is limited. That said, I'd be happy enough with a merge to capsule in a list of noteworthy audio manufacturers until there's (NPOV, RS) expansion but I can't see a suitable target and a permastub is hardly the worst thing in the CORP world
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PRODUCT)

Comment: See |PRODUCT REVIEWS. Those sites routinely review products. They have to be truly independent before things start to count for notability. If companies are sending products unsolicited, giving products, or even paying them for an evaluation, that's a payment for shelf space on their review site which fails the independent criteria. The company itself doesn't glean of notability and their products don't seem to shine with notability either. Being among a whole bunch of things that they review is definitely not an indication of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PRODUCTREV)

Comment: No claim of importance and no sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)