Deletion of Scentura (2nd nomination)

Comment: spaced ndash}}The topic has received significant press in many reliable sources. While much of the coverage may be criticisms of the company and its products, the topic appears to pass  very thoroughly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: mdash;I'm guessing that the sections of  you're looking at here are  and ?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Also, let me mention that I have not edited this article until this morning, and that I only found out about it by reading .  Anyway, I agree that the article's in bad shape, with single sentences cited to tens of sources.  However, I think that (a) this company is notable because it's been covered in newspapers extensively over decades, and (b) the coverage is overwhelmingly negative.  The criticisms of this company are the only thing that makes it notable.  If it weren't a scam, it wouldn't have a Wikipedia article.  The fact that most of the content in the article is negative is not cherry-picking, it's actually reflective of the proportions of positive vs. negative coverage in the press.  I'm not listing sources here to make a  case, because they're present in the article already.  The COI editors and the lousy state of the article can be fixed by editing, which is what  recommends, anyway.&mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BITR||WP:CHERRY||WP:COIN||WP:GNG)