Deletion of Consolidated supervision

Comment: per criterion #G11|G11 &mdash; blatant spam
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: while the article lacks application of |MoS and ontext|context, it is obviously (in light of the sources provided by Wikidemo) a verifiable term; however the prose completely fails to explain the subject, and how it differs from financial supervision, of which it seems to claim itself a seed of. The most perplex  issue here is how anyone could accuse this of spam; I hope some of those using the term could elaborate—unless they have completely misunderstood and though the article was about an organization rather than a business term, which would be rather alarming
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS||WP:C)

Comment: Per . Appears to have no intent but to promote the subject. It might be an organisation, but it might be dicdef. Insufficient context to make it clear; fails ontext, ,  and  and possibly 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM||WP:C||WP:N||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:DICDEF)