Deletion of Jacobsen Corporate Services

Comment: per author's own admission above, the company is in start-up mode; it may become |notable, but it isn't yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP:N|Notability and Wikipedia:CSD#A7|importance are two different things.  An article need not assert notability in order to avoid being speedily deleted (And for cases where an article is covered only by the |general notability guideline it is impossible for claims in the article to assert notability, because notability is established by the presence of detailed sourcing on the subject).  I'm not trying to read you the riot act, this is a common confusion for both editors and administrators (and it isn't helped by the fact that the language of A7 has changed over the years).  I have no comment on the merits of the deletion nomination itself, just figured I would establish why I declined the speedy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Only five English Google hits, two of which are here on Wikipedia.  Article has no third-party sourcing to assert notability and so it fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Not notable, nor does it pass #A7|A7
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)