Deletion of Holiday Extras

Comment: With my respect's to the author and his above reasoning, I don't think the article passes  nor . The only references I could find mentioned the company in passing. Company A bought Company B. Or Company A sells travel. Even then, those sources were not good sources (primary or advertisements).  states a business entity should have at least one regional, non-limited interest article provided towards notability. The author went to some great length above to prove notability, but the strongest argument presented was basically: most companies fail. Sadly, this does not address nor meet the requirements of  for any item on WP. An analogy of the author's justification would be similar to Operator873 managed to survive birth, grew to age, married, and had children; Therefore, Operator873 is notable. However, I fail notability tests... as does this article. {{ping|Davidcowell42}} Mr. Cowell, thank you for the time and effort you've spent on Wikipedia so far. Your contributions are appreciated, despite this referendum. I'd strongly encourage you to seek out articles that pique your curiosity or fancy that you may not have a |conflict of interest or close attachment to. I also welcome any questions you may have and am willing to help guide your future endeavors. Best wishes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:AUD||WP:AUD||WP:GNG||WP:COI)

Comment: the comments by the author don't change the fact that it still fails to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)