Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ScoopWhoop (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closing for a second time - Nom hasn't returned since the closure/reopening and no one's refuted the sources etc so closing as Keep....again (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ScoopWhoop

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating again since I'm simply not convinced by that first AfD and how it went and my searches at News, Books, Highbeam and WP:INDAFD simply found nothing actually better for notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same as last time. The article reads like an advertisement, prompting me to tag it as such. But that is strictly a content issue. At AfD, all we consider is notability. Under WP:GNG, notability is demonstrated by multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail. Those sources clearly exist, as demonstrated by the Business Standard and Quartz articles. Msnicki (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD. How much coverage is needed before people keep wasting time trying to delete rather than improve this article? A feature-length movie based on a series of 253 books? The sources provided unquestionably demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure Comment - I originally closed as Keep due to sources being shown and the fact nom hadn't seemingly followed before ... however someone disagreed and I really cannot be arsed for another round at ANI so I've just reopened it. –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.