Deletion of Ecoscraps

Comment: does not meet the new and improved . Sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions and . The article is entirely promotional, bordering on , as in: "In 2013, the company announced its product line would be available at 1700 Target stores"!. Etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:SPIP||WP:G11)

Comment: The Keep !votes above are clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of the criteria for establishing notability. While the references provided are all tier-one reliable sources, they all fail to meet the criteria/interpretation for "independent" sources (clarified in the recently updated  guidelines). The references are not intellectually independent, relying extensively on interviews/quotations from company sources with no independent opinion/analysis as attributed to the journalist, or are based on routine announcements such as funding. These types of references fail  and/or . Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages. This is a run-of-the-mill young company with normal advertorial-type "news" with company profiles, but is not intellectually independent as there is no independent opinion/analysis within the article itself. Topic fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NCORP)

Comment: See my comment above. The CNN, Reuters and Forbes articles fail the criteria for establishing notability, failing  and/or 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: as per the clearer and stricter  guidelines. I originally said I thought this company was "probably" notable but the above arguments swayed me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Not saying there isn't some promotional language that could be cleaned up, but I don't think AfD is the |right forum to address that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP)