Deletion of The Sater Design Collection

Comment: Please don't post any scans of sources - that would come under copyright violation! You can't make a particular source 'more reliable' - whatever form it is in, it is either reliable and independent or it isn't. I've just looked at some of your refs. The builderonline ones don't appear to be real reviews of the company - more like showcasing designs or getting comments on someone else's work. Anything with 'blog' in it, even a .gov site, is not reliable. In the article, the quotes from Amazon etc are highly promotional and quite out of place in an encyclopaedia article. People often forget that this is an encyclopaedia, and not a directory or promotional place like AboutUs. I'm willing to move the article to userspace for reworking (by you...)  if you think you can get rid of the  stuff, show that the subject meets , and get some refs that meet . Pictures - if they are your images then they may be uploaded here or to Commons. This means that you license them under CC-BY-SA 3.0 meaning that they remain your copyright but they can be used anywhere by anyone. (Any company owned images must be released by the company themselves - you can't just upload them and say that it's OK.) Don't ask me how to do it - most others will be able to help there - but don't worry about it until the text is sorted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:CORP||WP:RS)