Deletion of Scroogle (3rd nomination)

Comment: I was glad to find this article today, providing exactly the short encyclopedic description I was hoping for.  From other sources I was getting only parts of the picture, often with significant bias.  This article seems to me quite relevant in the context of Google-related privacy issues, a topic of mainstream interest.  It makes sense to me that it has its own page, as this was an entity in itself with its own history and role played.  I was not searching for general information on criticism of Google, so it doesn't make sense to me to move this there.  All good encyclopedias include shorter entries, and this is a nice one.  The following seem relevant:  (just because it is history is no reason to delete it),  (the news coverage listed above is not trivial coverage),  (although you may have never heard of it, it was apparently used by hundreds of thousands of people and considered important enough to be covered in PC magazine and many other news outlets around the world (the article itself has additional links to such coverage)). The reasons given above for deletion are vague, except for referring to the "original" AFD discussion (the first being in 2006 (result:keep), the second (a bit hard to find) in 2009 (result:delete), the third (this one) in 2013) -- anyway, the main reasons for deletion in the 2009 discussion seemed to be the  argument, but the many mainstream news sources listed above seem to show that since 2012 this argument is no longer valid.  Is there any remaining argument for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:DEFUNCTS||WP:TRIVCOV||WP:IDONTKNOWIT||WP:TRIVCOV)