Deletion of BYOND (2nd nomination)

Comment: Fails  due to lack of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: per .  No reliable sources, and not really even an assertation of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: no assertion of |notability, all coverage comes from their own website.  No indication of independent coverage in reliable, secondary sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per the exact same rationale I made in the first AFD, which I will reiterate: ''lack of |verifiable, third-party sources establishing |notability, nor could I find any. Article is also written in an in-universe tone and reads somewhat like an advertisement. It's kind of interesting that this article has been in this state or similar for over four years without a single deletion or trip to AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: If I may simply repeat the rationale from my original nomination: "Article presents no assertion of notability () or independent references (). Prod with these concerns was removed anonymously without comment in July. Request for sources since then has unearthed http://dsob.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/going-byond/, a blog which isn't sufficient per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are weblogs reliable sources? (blog author has 22 ghits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)