Deletion of Epik (domain registrar)

Comment: The coverage in the article currently demonstrates a strong passage of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: ec}} - I'm seeing a lot of substantial coverage in national media outlets. In addition,  states {{tq|evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability}}. I think coverage in  ''Vice'', ''Associated Press'', ''Seattle Times'', among other publications, shows that this article clearly passes  and , along with 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUD||WP:GNG||WP:ORGCRIT||WP:AUD)

Comment: plenty of  in the article to justify .  As to the claim "pages that exist only to disparage their subject", it does appear that the article is almost entirely negative.  However, that may be because all the coverage in  is negative--I have not checked.  If it is claimed that the article is not |neutral and does not accurately report what is in the , the remedy is not to delete the article, but to put in the  that balances out the article--if it exists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: Refs clearly meet GNG, and Epik is the main subject with  in several national and international RS, some of which are /P.  WP:NCORP does not prohibit articles on controversial companies (the opposite in fact), but does guide against using trivial coverage from local controversies, which is definitely not the case here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS)