Deletion of Impak Finance

Comment: per  with a dose of . The article exists solely to promote the business, with such puffed-up and vague language as {{tq|"...aiming to address social and environmental issues..."}}. Will it cure cancer next? :-) Nothing to salvage here; sources do not meet . This is clearly ; let's have the company first solve these "social and environmental issues
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO||WP:TNT||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: ping|Peridon}} If I may defend myself here, I was given a tag about notability to which I accepted responsibility and which I applied  corrections to the article. Two of the sources are independent reportings by notable Canadian national news outlets: weekly newspaper Les Affaires and national public broadcaster Radio-Canada (french arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). I strongly believe that fits the reliability definition of news organisations listed at  and while I did look for it, I couldn't find any minimum number of such sources needed to pass notability (my sole other wikipedia creation, :es:TÉLUQ, has only one and has never ever been considered for AfD). As for 'Too soon' aspect of it, the shareholding public offering is happening on October 12th,2016 (in 10 days from the moment I'm writing this sentence), that is non speculative and fits to  number one's criteria: ″Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and ''almost certain to take place''.″ As for the ″scrambling″ aspect of the sources I talked about, they served to cover the ″Market″ subsection of the article, where statistics are displayed but I only hold ''physical'' documents (these subsections even had their sources listed ''directly'' in the text). I never created any ″source″ solely for passing filters
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:NEWSORG||WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: Looks too promotional for my liking. So far as I can see, it doesn't even come into action until next year.  might be worth reading. You say, "I am also scrambling to get the online access to the sources of the document.". This implies to me that you are trying to get things online to prove notability. If I'm right there, that's not how it works. Sources need to be reliable and independent 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:RS)