Deletion of Tamko

Comment: Just about every excuse has been used by the Keep !voters above - except the only measure that counts which is at least two references that pass . Not a single reference that is either in the article or that I can locate online meets the criteria for establishing notability. If we want to simply ignore our own guidelines, fine, lets keep any article on a company that is 70 years old, a major employer and has been sued in court. Otherwise, lets follow our own guidelines. Topic fails NCORP and GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: With the new added sources it passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NORG)

Comment: if I have to compare it with policies like  and  it fails both. I created much better articles that were heavily referenced but deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:GNG)

Comment: not a  company but a major manufacturer of roofing with operations across a number of states. Many more sources available given it's 70+ year history
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL)

Comment: per most recently added references. Remember, judgments of notability should be based on |what sources are out there, not what sources are already in the article. Even the most cursory web search turns up a number of independent secondary sources, not a surprising result for a large, 70 year old company
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOSSIBLE)