Deletion of Darwinex

Comment: Comment''': The argument for notability among English-language sources looks very weak. I can only find https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/07/start-ups-take-on-hedge-funds-with-social-trading.html one in-depth English language article on this company, and some scattered entries among sketchier sources, so on the basis of English sources I would easily vote delete. However, including Spanish-language sources (as permitted under  point 3), a superficial inspection to a non-Spanish speaker makes the picture suddenly completely bewildering. They get in-depth coverage time and time again from one source: There is one particular radio station that appears to be obsessed with this company, doing https://www.capitalradio.es/noticias/otros/darwinex-el-futuro-del-movimiento-trader_43866810.html a 40 minute radio segment, https://www.capitalradio.es/noticias/otros/mejor-sitio-vender-operativa-darwinex-ti_73352870.html a 30 minute radio segment, https://www.capitalradio.es/noticias/bolsa/gran-salto-darwinex-asi-sera-inclusion-interactive-brokers_73770969.html a 20 minute radio segment, https://www.capitalradio.es/noticias/bolsa/brokers-vs-dealers-cual-te-va-hacer-ganar-mas-dinero-segun-darwinex_74095853.html a 35 minute radio segment, https://www.capitalradio.es/noticias/otros/darwinex-amplia-cambo-batalla-integrarse-interactive-brokers_71997513.html another 35 minute radio segment ... all just about this company. I can pretty much understand the literal meanings because I speak related languages, but I simply lack the cultural context to understand what is going on here. Is this a really amazing  rescue by this one radio station that happens to be the only independent reliable source that really thinks this company is worth covering in extreme detail? Is this probably paid coverage? Something in between? I would like to see comments from someone who understands how to interpret this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: I am unable to locate any |significant coverage with |in-depth information on the company and containing |independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per  is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP, topic fails GNG/
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)