Deletion of TOMS SHOES (2nd nomination)

Comment: Thus far, there is a lot of argument in support of satisfying notability, and no opposition, not even in the nomination. I would be interested in reading more discussion regarding the reason given for this nomination: . &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)

Comment: The subject has far more notability today than when the original AfD case was decided in 2006. In both cases,  has appeared to be a problem, and in the 1st nomination it's possible that the article was blatant spam by someone affiliated with TOMS. However, article has been cleaned up since this AfD case was opened. There are PLENTY of reliable sources that can be used to write this article today, which was likely not the case when the first AfD case went through. It would be silly to end up deleting this article...just make sure we keep NPOV on it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVERTISING)

Comment: Is tagging the article for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron|rescue immediately after an AfD nomination equivalent to #Votestacking|votestacking? &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVAS)

Comment: No doubt that this article has too much self-promotional fluff.  It should be excised of the timeline, advertising copy and other puffery. I've also gone ahead and clarified that that award is not an actual National Design Award, but rather an online popularity contest sponsored by the museum. That being said, the substantial mentions in the http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/lifestyle/319343_tomsshoes12.html ''Seattle Pos-Intelligencer'', http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/24/green-retail-shops-tech-paperplastic08-cx_ls_0724retail.html ''Forbes'', http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/homestyle/03/26/blake.mycoskie.toms.shoes/  ''CNN'', http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/10/11/power-point-be-the-change/  ''Fortune', and http://www.style.com/stylefile/2008/06/erotic-boots-that-help-the-underprivileged-all-in-a-days-work-for-toms/ ''Vogue'' definitely provide enough |significant coverage to pass |notability criteria for a company and warrant a keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ORG)