Deletion of Everipedia (2nd nomination)

Comment: This is a company (website) and  needs to be satisfied. I do not see that happening here. None of the sources show any evidence of deep coverage. Please note that per  {{highlight | The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered...Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability|lightblue}}. Please also remember that  needs to be satisfied - sources need to be independent of the company or its employees. {{highlight|Works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people are ''not'' considered independent sources.|lightblue}} I do not see any evidence that would enable Everipedia to pass the notability guidelines at this time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: I agree with {{u|Staszek Lem}} that the first AFD close appeared to ignore weight of argument, although I guess DR would technically be the venue for that discussion. However, we are where we are, without any sources that are not PR puff, and none that are reliable and independent. The article creator is still citing  when it has been explained to him that has no relevance at all to sourcing notability, and  without providing any. Again, despite previous explanations that it has no bearing on notability, he continues to list instances of journalists scraping minor factoids or second hand images from Everipedia, which has no relevance to whether GNG is met (it isn't) and amounts to nothing more than lazy journalists scraping an unreliable source from a web search. I truly hope we are better than that.  Selectively canvassing editors who have agreed in the past, as he does here, is also a huge red flag, and impermissible
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Search engine test (WP:GOOGLECHECK||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Because I know this is going to come up: Yes, The Daily Pennsylvanian is a . No, it is not sufficient for GNG in this case, because it's a local ''interview'' with the creators which is about the people, not the product. It has the same issue as the other refs, because the Everipedia staff was directly involved in its creation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)