Deletion of EverythingCU.com (2nd nomination)

Comment: ironically prompted by the above post. "The article has not established its notability yet ..." fails . Just because something belongs to a wide category is not even close to grounds to notability. Some art I might choose to draw is part of the 'art' category, which has a huge number of interested parties, and could potentially become famous in the future. Does that make it notable? 'Course not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Fails . I disagree with Townlake. This article is not a speedy keep for sure. It is a non-notable website
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: non-notable wesbite, fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I have added |reliable sources including an in-depth story about the site itself and stories in a leading industry publication. There are plenty more non-RS sources out there (mostly blogs) that add to notability and can be used for {{fact}} issues
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Per  #1.  Yes this article needs sources, but the nomination rationale needs to be a little sharper than "WP:N" surrounded by dismissive language, and we don't know who the nominator is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)