Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treatstock
I had noticed the promotional tone myself, and I spent some time removing the fluff because I thought the article was salvageable. The references, while restricted to trade publications, do seem like reliable sources for their purpose, and I doubt that they are paid references as the nominator alleges. On the other hand, I have never agreed with the concept of notability being conferred solely by coverage in niche trade press; I prefer to see broader coverage. On the Gripping Hand, our notability guideline  doesn't mention excluding trade publications (I have advocated that it should, in the past), so I admit I can't find a policy-based reason to delete if the sources are indeed deemed reliable
— User:Amatulic, 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:CORP (Wikipedia:Notability)