Deletion of Golden Spike Company

Comment: Every single time I write a new article about a company it gets nominated for deletion.  One of these days somebody might actually pay attention and |assume good faith just to let me have a chance to actually put in some bloody sources to get the damn thing written!  This AfD nomination took a whole 20 minutes from the time I started the stub, and even tried to put notices on the article that it was still under construction.  At least this whole AfD discussion will be moot by the time the clock runs out to close this discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: I have to agree, 20 minutes? Really? Why did the nominator not ask the author "Hey, this might be premature, would you mind userfying this until Thursday when we know what is what?" Yes, it is a bit premature, but there's an argument for notability based on pre-existing press coverage (prior to this announcement thing), and that'd be sufficient for a weak keep. Common sense carries the other question - there's about to be a whole lot of press coverage in two days, and we know that to be the case, so deletion prior to that (and prior to the 7 days here) makes little sense. See also 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)

Comment: endorsing almost completely Masem's comment. My only issue is that also the application of  is misguided. The article is not about an event, it's about a company. The event may be in the future and we don't know if it will happen. The company however exists ''now'', and sources discuss it as an existing entity. There is a difference between the articles Present Notable Company (which is rumoured to do future event X) and Future Event X (which will be done by a company). The second is , the first is not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: on the assumption that Dec 6 announcement bears out what the rumors suggest.   to the creator for rushing to create something on limited and rumored sources that could have waited a few days or be done in user space, but no need to delete this now.  Similarly  to the nominator for not giving a few days to develop even if it is CRYSTAL, we're in no deadline to remove material, particularly that which will be in better line within 7 days. (If the company instead had announced they would reveal what they were doing on a date in 2013/2014, then absolutely yes, deletion via CRYSTAL would be appropriate here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT||WP:TROUT)