Deletion of VR Bangers

Comment: non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" isn't the test for a reference to see if it meets the criteria for establishing notability - take a read of , especially  and . The VentureBeat reference looks to me like they've copied most of the information from the company website including a "statement" from the CEO and contains nothing that I can identify as ''original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject''. The CNET reference recounts information provided by Daniel Abramovich (the CEO) and fails . The motherboard reference is based on a company announcement and quotations from company sources (dependent coverage), also failing 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: Seriously? Simply by clicking on the sources cited in the article I find a lot of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources such as https://venturebeat.com/2016/02/27/vr-bangers-takes-porn-to-virtual-reality-with-360-degree-4k-videos/ VentureBeat, https://www.cnet.com/news/can-virtual-reality-get-you-to-pay-for-porn-again/ CNET and https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3dmqg/vr-porn-is-helping-men-jerk-off-into-cups-at-fertility-clinics Vice. Obvious  pass
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Some of this content could be perhaps soft redirected / merged to VR porn - if we had the article. The company, however, does seem to fail . Plus there is the issue of undisclosed paid editing. I was told that we will block and ban editors to discourage disruptive behavior even if it prevents them from making some other constructive editor, to drive home the point that disruptive behavior will be punished. Well, I think we should also drive this point home to spammers. Even if a company would be notable (and I am not saying this one is), deletion of their article, if they chose to advertise here through services of an undisclosed paid editor, is following the same logic as banning an editor who could and did create some fine content alongside of making disruptive edits. Just a thought
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)