Deletion of SA Recycling LLC

Comment: the sourcing is either minor mentions or local in nature (yes, the ''LA Times'' local coverage is local coverage just like any other paper's. The same would go for the ''NYT'' or ''WaPo'', and ''LAT'' isn't on their level in terms of prestige.) The reduced promotionalism also doesn't matter: the article was created with the intent of promoting the company. Having a page on Wikipedia, even if neutral, is a form of advertising as we are the ''fifth largest website in the world'' and the first Google search result for everything. {{tq|Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts.... those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.}} Our policy has no tolerance for advertising, and our definition of it is ''not'' solely limited to tone (it is for G11, but an XfD can delete for promo beyond just tone, see , , and .){{pb}}For a borderline notable company, where inclusion on Wikipedia would be the biggest coverage they have ever received, and where the article was created in a clear attempt to promote, the answer under policy is obvious: we delete it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL14||WP:NOTSPAM||WP:WHATISTOBEDONE)