Deletion of Hillier Parker May and Rowden

Comment: I'm not sure that using pejorative terms such as 'deltionist' is particularly useful here. In any case, occasional mentions in even |reliable sources may not be sufficient to reflect 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: This was a company that was in existence for 102 years, and for much of that time was a significant player on the London property scene, and latterly on the national UK property scene. It was sold in 1998 for $69 million – that is not a "non-notable corporation". ''Inter alia'', in the interwar rolling out of shopping parades throughout the UK, "Woolworth’s is known to have collaborated closely with several property developers and their agents, including Hillier, Parker, May & Rowden, Second Covent Garden Properties and Central Commercial Properties, firms which routinely employed their own staff architects to develop parades." (Kathryn Morrison and Paul Stamper, ''https://www.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/iha-shopping-parades/ Shopping Parades'' (Historic England, 2016), p. 15.) Brian Raggett, Senior Director of Hillier Parker, also served as President of the Royal Town Planning Institute. In a http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmenvtra/841/841ap23.htm memorandum of 1999 submitted by CB Hillier Parker the firm in its post-1998 incarnation to a House of Commons Select Committee, it states that the firm "advises the public and private sectors on all aspects of retail agency, investment, planning, development and research". Research reports commissioned from it are cited in reputable secondary sources, e.g. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-EcrBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=hillier+parker+the+impact+of+large+food+stores+on+market+towns&source=bl&ots=S7vJ-XHf-F&sig=qJzR-V-rUt-FoAg4AoYRuCH8PI0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij7d-huKPOAhWJuhQKHWTBCOwQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=hillier%20parker%20the%20impact%20of%20large%20food%20stores%20on%20market%20towns&f=false here. The article is not an orphan: it currently has 3 articles linking to it, and no doubt further links could be found/created without too much difficulty. Notability really should not be an issue. The problem is that the article has been created and worked on by enthusiasts who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia protocols and conventions, and have failed to cite their sources, resulting in its current reduction to a stub. This appears to be a classic case of |biting the newcomers. They should be guided and encouraged (as, I am pleased to see
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)