Deletion of Yellow Van Handyman

Comment: The article has some references, but I see very brief mention in the LA Times, and longer pieces on blogs or websites which might not qualify as independent and reliable sources.  Just not quite seeing that it satisfies  unless someone can cut through the puffery and spam and point out the best claims to notability. (As an aside, it's not clear why a local handyman would want to pay a franchise fee to be a "Yellow Van Handyman" or how he could afford to sit back and hire others to be "handymen" working for him as the franchisee, when there appears to be no TV advertising  and thus name recognition as there is for many other companies which fix garage doors, or rooter out clogged drains, or fix leaky basements, or kill bugs). A claim (verified where?) of 40 franchisees  in the US and Canada does not seem that notable in itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This article has a very promotional tone consistent with its questionable history; it's a borderline #G11 speedy. I don't think we can trust it to be a neutral and encyclopedic article. And there are many footnotes but most of them look quite promotional in nature, and some that aren't (an LA Times story) don't mention the company even trivially. A Google news archive search for the name of the company finds nothing usable as a source so I'm not convinced this passes 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:ORG)

Comment: sources given do not strike me as particularly representing significant coverage, and the reliable of them is highly in doubt, especially ones of a "blog" type nature.  Therefore, I am unconvinced that the subject passes 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)