Deletion of Dooley Car Rentals

Comment: the page doesn't meet the criteria outlined at . I note that the page creator has Talk:Dooley Car Rentals#Removed content deeming promotional|commented on the article's talk page, but the argument there appears to be based on |OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and some vague |Wikilawyering nonsense suggesting that Wikipedia needs to keep the page in order to comply with European competition law
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:LAWYER)

Comment: I am unable to locate any |significant coverage with |in-depth information on the company and containing |independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Per nom, there is no evidence that  or  are met. A quick  exercise just returns just run-of-the-mill coverage and passing mentions. It is telling that the article has to rely on the types of references it does, for even the very basic information that is included (company registration record, directories, adverts, etc). The editing patterns are also, per nom, consistent with those often seen when  concerns are raised
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COMPANY||WP:GNG||WP:BEFORE||WP:PAID)

Comment: While this is an improvement over the  iterations, despite the heroic efforts of Special:Undelete/Draft:Dooley_Car_Rentals|draft and Special:Undelete/Dooley_Car_Rentals|main space article creators, the subject still does not meet  or . Please see the sourcing requirements there. The independent  coverge is not sufficiently significant, nor sufficiently in depth. What we have is a  built of routine, mostly non independent coverage of an entity that was bought by a larger entity and wishful thinking. This does not even merit a redirect to the new owner. I have seen the creator's talk page arguments and find them insufficient to overcome the deficiencies, if anything, they are just more promotionalism. I have read and concur except where they vary from my own rationale with  Special:permalink/978882010|the prior deletion rationales extant at time of this writing. I will, for the record and as a reminder, state that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that mumbo-jumbo about European competition law is irrelevant, and just gives the impression that this is an attempt to promote a business
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:G11||WP:GNG||WP:CORP||WP:COATRACK)