Deletion of ReGlobe

Comment: only sources that I could find are just deals relating to the company, which does not contribute to  notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: This is a private start-up launched two years ago which pretty comprehensively fails . Note that while the article claims it was started in 2012, their own website says that it was launched in 2013. http://www.reglobe.in/site/aboutus.html Having examined the sources, I agree with the nominator that they are all essentially press-release based. The article is clearly written to drum up business. Even if kept, 80% of it would need to be removed. Although this it is not in itself a reason to delete, I note that this has all the earmarks of a "paid for" article—springing fully formed from a brand new editor as their first edit, complete with perfectly formatted infobox and "references
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: Obviously promotional/paid for article. #6 is borderline , #7's use of bold blinded me in addition to being a very promotional article from a very small news organization whose website looks like http://www.fridaygurgaon.com/home.aspx this. #1 is the only reliable significant coverage of this business, but the article cannot rest on the back of that single source and LaMona has already ruled out the remaining sources. This Wikipedia article was clearly written with the intention of promoting the company and needs a good bit of Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)