Deletion of BFL CANADA

Comment: per , without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be sourced ''properly''. As written, this does indeed have some advertorial/PR shades to it (not blatant enough to warrant ''speedy'', but definitely still present), and it's sourced almost entirely to |primary sources, such as the websites of other organizations with which it has a direct affiliation and  ''paid-inclusion'' notices of executive staffing appointments in the business-section equivalent of the classified advertising|classifieds, with virtually no evidence of any real |reliable source coverage about it in the ''journalism'' sections of newspapers or magazines. That's ''not'' the kind of sourcing it takes to get a company over  ''regardless'' of how notable it may be in theory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:ROUTINE||WP:RS||WP:CORP)

Comment: run of the mill |wikispam by . Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:ARTSPAM||WP:SPA)