Deletion of MySupermarket (3rd nomination)

Comment: Virtually nothing in the article is not promotional. DGG is absolutely correct,  would apply here. The canvassing by another editor is very problematic as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Note in the last AFD the nominator stated and I quote "''{{xt|'''Delete''' Just grab a bucket and mop this |SPAM up.}}''https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MySupermarket_(2nd_nomination)&diff=755912191&oldid=755910294" - Clearly they have an axe to grind and want the article deleted and are seemingly trying any way they can ''to'' have it deleted, Anyway back on topic the article ''was'' promotional however Cunard has seen to that, The article includes indepth and reliable sourcing and so as such GNG is met, This AFD is nothing more than  and should be Speedy Kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM||WP:IDHT)

Comment: on deletionist arguments that rely on the Wikimedia Terms of Use (m:TOU) and the Wikipedia policy : it is true that these policy-level documents would trump notability guidelines such as , , and  if any conflict existed between them. But no such conflict exists on any matter relevant to this deletion discussion; in fact, m:TOU and  create no grounds for page deletion not already fully covered in the notability guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N||WP:WEB||WP:CORP||WP:NOT)