Deletion of Norman Technologies

Comment: Does not appear to meet  and yes, I was involved in that discussion so I have read it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: While well-written and informative, it does not yet meet  criteria. What exactly has this company done that is notable?  Offering unique services does not in itself make a company notable. How have those services been used to do notable things? Any innovative work that was mentioned in major trade magazines/journals? Has there been *any* notable news to come from this company that was reported by major trade/national/international publications
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: The article contains no citations or references for most claims (all except two fairly minor facts). Therefore it fails the  and  policies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V)

Comment: unique" Google hits are a fallacy, and have no bearing on the importance of a given topic. Under no circumstances will any imaginable topic, no matter how notable, return in excess of 1000 "unique" hits. The article topic is still a |non-notable corporation though
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: seems to meet  (mention is non-trivial in a newspaper).  Could be improved to address minor POV, but I don't see that as a reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: Verifiable. Notability, by the way, is not even a guideline, much less official policy. I prefer to based my decisions on , , and . They do the job quite nicely with no need to refer to nebulous concepts like notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Clearly fails any sensible reading of .  Small; privately held; non-disclosure of financial information.  Logo displayed with "permission".  How do ''you'' spell advertisement?  Unverifiable claims to uniqueness of its market and role. It's not even '''possible''' to verify a claim that they are the ''ONLY American I.T. consultancy engaged solely in international financial transaction initiatives'' (as if that's something that even matters outside the company) unless a really reputable source makes the claim (and not a press release reprint-mill like so many small publications
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: meets  and I don't care if people get paid to write stuff as long as it is |verifiable & |neutral
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:V||WP:NPOV)

Comment: This is a strange interpretation of the WP mission.  By definition, advertising and self-promotion (eg, autobiography, and this is essentially corporate autobiography) fails .  Articles which are sponsored by self-interested parties do positive harm to the mission of an encyclopedia.  That's why it should go.  If it was possible to objectively write the thousands of articles you mention in an objective and unbiased manner, I could agree.  But it's not possible.  If articles like this aren't deleted, WP will become a big yellow pages saturated with disinformation, lies and distortions, and will only serve the over-inflated egos of the authors.  It will not be providing anything close to '''Information#Information_is_not_data|information''' (q.v
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: as it appears to meet  and is verifiable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: because it's obvious that too few Delete-advocates even read  when they cite it as a reason for deletion.  So, let me copy it here, so you don't have to click the link and read it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)