Deletion of MOPAK

Comment: replyto|Britishfinance}} - the Turkish fortune article is good, however the Hürriyet article appears to be an interview, without independent commentary - thus it doesn't help give any notability. Given the strictness, of , it still doesn't meet notability. I'd be happy enough to !vote draftification (or even userfy) if you'd prefer me to do that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: inability to find suitable sources, let alone to pass . Notwithstanding someone who might manage a better job than I at searching the turkish sources. As a side note, I suspect the article could probably be considered to fail |G11 (advertising
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:G11)

Comment: does not meet . No attempt has been made to provide at least ''one'' third-party source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Fails .  Three sources, all are non-independent.  The company is very actively promoting itself.  I think there is no chance of it meeting .  Do not draftify, but delete with prejudice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)