Deletion of Stone Bridge Homes NW

Comment: I have not done the research to see what else it out there, but what is in there is somewhat questionable. The Oregonian articles are suspect in that although they cover the topic in depth, they are not standard articles by the paper's writers. They are "special to" and other not exactly notability conferring types of articles. As in, I suspect they are PR pieces in disguise (more so than most biz articles) and that perhaps the company (or their PR firm) has been working on this. My main question is, did the nominator look in a good faith attempt to see if there is the -REASON|coverage to confer notability? Currently I see no such statement. Without that, I would actually vote keep on procedural grounds, as that has almost always |been a requirement (and still is) prior to starting an AfD listing (and common courtesy prior to even a PROD given the deletion policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Paid editing is not a deletion criterion, as far as I know. Can you direct us to the guideline that says it is? Per , please address the article, not the editor--what |policy based concerns about the article's content do you have? Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATTP||WP:PGL)