Deletion of Shabbos App (2nd nomination)

Comment: per . This is an article about a future product from a vendor with no track record. In general, we should try to not let Wikipedia be used for promotion. Deleting the article now would be appropriate. We can revisit this if and when the thing ships. It's supposed to ship on 1 DEC 2014, so we'll know then.  Waiting will also resolve the "hoax" issue. This is an encyclopedia; there's no big rush
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: because '''1''' the article cites sufficient  & , and adheres to , to make it basically  regardless if it was a trial balloon or has yet to see the light of day it has sparked serious attention and '''2''' because it relates to serious core issues of Shabbat-observant Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox young Jews who are nevertheless addicted to texting and communicating with each other on Shabbat with their smart phones hence the interest in this innovation. '''3''' So this is not a "hoax" nor is it a form of "crystal balling" rather it's something to be treated more in the spirit of  and . '''4''' This AfD comes within days of the first AfD being closed as lacking consensus to delete, meaning there was enough of a  to keep the article and ''not'' delete it. Therefore, one can only conclude that '''5''' the nominator appears very upset that his arguments and POV did ''not'' carry the day first time around and now wants to keep the arguments going, that does seem rather Y and engaging in borderline  behavior to achieve on the fly what was not achieved after almost a month that the 1st AfD lasted. '''6''' Note that way out Theories, even non-existent Faeries and invisible Ghosts, get their own elaborate WP articles even if they never make an appearance in the real world right away or ever. '''7''' The nominator is advised to read up on  and cool it. Thank you
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:N||WP:DONOTDEMOLISH||WP:CHANCE||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:POINT||WP:BATTLEGROUND||WP:SPIDERMAN)

Comment: Got to shake my head at the Delete voters, who're basing their opposition largely on |WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT arguments.  Who freaking cares about the app's Kickstarter status, and what does that have to do with Wikipedia guidelines?  The subject's discussed at length in high-quality, major media sources.  Done deal.  This is a GNG pass
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USELESS)

Comment: Product doesn't exist yet and the article is all based on  and  - not what an encyclopedia is about
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:GOSSIP)

Comment: The topic easily passes  having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's inconsequential whether or not the app has been released or even if it's a hoax, as |topic notability is based upon source coverage, the reliability of sources and depth of coverage. Source examples include
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N)

Comment: per Northamerica1000: "It's inconsequential whether or not the app has been released or even if it's a hoax, as |notability is based upon source coverage." In simple words, even if it is a hoax, it is a notable hoax
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)