Deletion of Directive Communication

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)

Comment: I don't think it's |boastful enough to be speedied as advertising, and it seems to be more about a theory than an organization, so it doesn't qualify under A7 either, but I don't see any assertion of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:PEACOCK)

Comment: I read the article. I read the response on the talk page where the person who had never before contributed compared us to the Nazis in the first line of his first ever edit. I have read your admission that you work for the man and his company. That is |conflict of interest, no other way around it. Look at what you yourself said, ''"we are doing a job to inform the public of "Proven" methods in organisational change and training, this makes us no money or helps us to sell books or porduct, true, it is PR"''. Wikipedia is not that place. It needs to be established '''elsewhere''' first. You've offered no proof that it has been covered in |reliable, verifiable sources that are independent of the subject. It's also extremely odd that so many paragraphs have been written in defense of these two articles, yet the articles themselves are still only one-line stubs
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:RS)