Deletion of Davis & Shirtliff

Comment: It was but a moment's work to find articles by four different newspapers which are specifically about the subject, plus a couple of other pages from other websites; I believe this easily satisfies : "''An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.''" I added these to the article and copyedited a little to make it more descriptive than promotional. I would invite Kudpung and Kimchi.sg to reassess their position on notability in light of this change (and DGG's edit); if still unsatisfied, it should be fairly easy to add additional refs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COMPANY)

Comment: This AfD request is not  just  about  promotional tone, it  is also  about  notability  and sourcing - two  major criteria for inclusion. Lines 127, 172, 278, 284, 296 298, 482, 585, of the vast 78 page  Loughboro  Uni  research  report briefly  mention Davis & Shirtliff, but  the report  is not  ''about''  the company  of D&L, and they  are only  mentioned in  comparisons with  other suppliers of pumps in  the market,  the prices and stocks of pumps, the local  areas they  serve,  and servicing  facilities.  The research  report  does not contribute to  'significant  coverage' of the Wikipedia article subject, even broadly  construed as a  and , and the mentions do  not  add to  the notability  of the Wikipedia article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: I  have absolutely  no  problems whatsoever reassessing  my  position  on  this AfD if criteria are correctly  met - I've spent  hours trying  to  save it  myself.  I  will  point  out  that the very  famous pump manufacturer Grundfos is not  up  for discussion (see ), and it  would be helpful all round if contributors to  this discussion  can leave their emotions out of it, and sign their posts
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: per nomination, fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: The coverage by third parties of this company is substantial and indicates passing  and its .  Nominating an article that asserts its subjects notability within hours of its creation is rarely helpful
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG)