Deletion of MySupermarket (2nd nomination)

Comment: Just grab a bucket and mop this |SPAM up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)

Comment: as corporate spam on an |run-of-the-mill service; I don't see notability or significance here. Receiving $13M in investment is chump change as these things go
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL)

Comment: As shown at  and ,  is still '''policy''' whereas GNG is a suggested guideline, as GNG itself states that it is not the foremost. NOT is still the first policy we ever started actually using because it formed what was explicitly unsuitable for WP itself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:GNG)

Comment: Notable. Passes . Promotional tone can be addressed by |copy editing the article. Source examples include, but are not limited to, those listed below
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:COPYEDIT)

Comment: per Lemongirl and DGG.  controls here and this article fails it. I would note to {{user|Sionk}} that it is absolutely common practice to cleanup an article mid-AfD in the interest of saving it. I've seen it done many times and done so at least once myself. Even if the article is deleted anyway, the rewrite can be the basis for a future article if more sources become available
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPROMO)

Comment: WP:NOTPROMO is a good reason for deleting the article and hey, it is |part of a policy (unlike the essays people are citing). The article consists of a massive amount of promo content (sourced to a bunch of redressed PR material) and a link dump which is contrary to . Considering that nobody in this AFD has bothered to clean it up, I suggest we go with a delete. (As a matter of fact, I have seen a recent influx of editors using these trashy articles as models and then trying to emulate these, leading to a host of bad content.) The other reason for deleting is that the sources are not good enough to satisfy . You gotta be kidding me if you believe http://abc7.com/archive/9300573/ this satisfies  and . The other sources are also not good enough - http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/companies/mysupermarket-plays-up-precision-marketing-service/353867.article The Grocer is an employee talking about the company, http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/institute/a23852/try-mysupermarket-to-save-money-on-groceries/ Goodhousekeeping is an initial review by an university student, https://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/oct/21/consumernews.moneysupplement The Guardian reliable source, but again, an initial review, https://www.marketingweek.com/2012/10/26/mysupermarket-app-to-revolutionise-online-shopping/ Marketingweek again employee talking about the company, https://techcrunch.com/2013/06/10/grocery-comparison-site-mysupermarket-launches-u-s-megastore-for-finding-best-prices-across-amazon-walmart-target-more/ Techcrunch is again the CEO talking, http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/wpp-buys-7m-stake-mysupermarketcom/1127914 Campaignlive is a trivial news about a merger/aquisition, http://6abc.com/archive/9258376/ ABC 2 is again an employee talking about the company, http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2407855/Shoppers-compare-Aldi-prices-supermarkets-using-MySupermarket-app.html ThisIsMoney (part of DailyMail) is a tangential mention in the context of another company. Sorry, but these sources are not good enough for  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL14||WP:ELNO||WP:CORPIND||WP:CORPIND||WP:SPIP||WP:CORPIND||WP:CORPDEPTH)