Deletion of CJ Environmental

Comment: I'm AkankshaG's argument about "deletionist means article is good" is tough to take. There ''are'' the three sources given, but Inc is minimal, the CSM article is acceptable, and the Press Democrat article is onyl 50% about CJ Environmental. I thought perhaps the news articles would be under http://www.google.com/search?q=CashforGoldUSA&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn "CashforGoldUSA", but that just shows a press release and makes me suspect this is a company strong in marketing and capturing a current meme, not a company truly satisfying , not to mention taking advantage of the Cash4Gold name. So I say delete. Admittedly, about 50% of my !vote is my gut feel and because I worked on creating the Cash4Gold article, about 50% of it is based on Wikipedia guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Subject is profiled in Inc. Magazine at http://www.inc.com/inc5000/2009/company-profile.html?id=200901250, and discussed substantively in the Christian Science Monitor at http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2009/0204/p03s04-usec.html and the Press Democrat at http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20101004/BUSINESS/101009760/1033?p=all&tc=pgall, all three of which are , and which satisfies our requirements under otability. The nomination is inappropriate under these circumstances
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: per AkrankshaG.  I hate the commercials for these companies, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable.  I easily found two articles about them in Inc. and the Press Democrat and Monitor articles mentioned.  All of this and the Fox 5 broadcast means this subject fits what we ask for in  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORP)