Deletion of Haldanes Solicitors and Notaries

Comment: Fails , with no substantive, independent coverage available in reliable sources. I expect this page to become another sock target; if so, please report them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Haldanes here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: per nominator. Not notable. Article originally created by single-purpose accounts with undeclared |conflict of interest for promotional purposes, contrary to Wikipedia policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: conform with  - ample third parties' references and independent secondary sources are there.  this article, in fact, contain more independent references (i.e. Not self serving or promotional) than many articles about other organizations or companies that I came across on Wikipedia. Also,  - notability seems to be satisfied given the broad spectrum of legal references from different countries (I saw the names of legal directories and I click on all these). Do not see why it would constitute "advertising" or "promotion"? Would it be a bit too harsh? --Special:Contributions/124.217.188.198|124.217.188.198
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS||WP:ORG)

Comment: I see no evidence of  notability. Sufficient in-depth coverage could provide  notability, but despite the large number of references I'm not seeing any of that either. It all seems to be essentially press releases, directory-type listings, primary company sources, advertorial, a couple of passing mentions in stories that are not about Haldanes itself, and one in Chinese that I can't read (though having seen all the rest, I don't hold out much hope). It's the kind of trivial reference flood I'd expect COI editors to use to try to make a company appear notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:GNG)