Deletion of Future Steel Buildings

Comment: based on my web searches, I find multiple mentions of the subject, but none that one would say are significant coverage per . There are multiple news hits for the company as well, but the majority appear to be advertisements, or do not significantly talk about the subject of this article. IMHO, the company which the article is about does not pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Quite aside from that it's extremely condescending to imply that Canadian First Nations people neither use books, newspapers or reliable newssources, there is a strange school of thought circulating around Wikipedia that if there is some putative excuse for reliable sources not to be found on a particular subject, the requirements of , ,  and/or  are suspended. '''This curious notion has no basis in policy or guideline.'''Moreover, it is quite possible to advocate the deletion of an article on its merits, without requiring a grudge against First Nations or needing to be an editor from Ontario.  There is nothing in policy or guideline, either, giving a free pass to companies that have allegedly done work for the military; no doubt thousands of companies do, from giant multinationals to the local meat market supplying the PX.But that being said, this is not some outfit operating out of a Quonset hut north-of-60.  This is a company headquartered, according to its article, in a city of 250,000 people in metro Toronto.  Such a company, were it genuinely notable, would have ample opportunity to be the subject of reliable sources.  As it happens, there are zero Google News hits, an ominous sign.  Fails .  No prejudice against userfication
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:CORP)

Comment: as per , and as per the discussions on this AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The articles in First Nation Drums and Advantage (pp 28-29) cited by Tim Pierce are accompanied by big paid ads on the same page. I have to consider whether the ad placement was conducive to getting favorable coverage. The independence and reliability of the references must be questioned. That leaves one apparently independent and reliable source, which is skimpy with respect to |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)