Deletion of Craftsvilla (2nd nomination)

Comment: Numerous sources available to satisfy , and |AFD is not cleanup so the current state of the article, contrary to SwisterTwister's claims, is irrelevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP)

Comment: Subject meets , sources are present in abundance
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: nbsp; If  says that it is a content guideline, why does the post say that it is a "policy" and a "Wikipedia foundation"?&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM)

Comment: nbsp; The nomination provides no -REASON, so editors must guess as to the purpose for the nomination.&nbsp; In the previous AfD, the nominator cited "notability", which would be 8, although when sources were brought to the AfD the nominator asserted that they were "simply expected coverage", which is not policy-based terminology.&nbsp; No mention was made then of "advertising".&nbsp; Currently, there is no concern for notability.&nbsp; The word "blatant" or forms of the word appear here five times.&nbsp; If the problems are now "blatant", how do we interpret the absence at the last AfD of a concern for blatancy or any concern for "advertising"?&nbsp; The nomination states that the concerns were stated at the previous AfD, but objectively I see no basis for this assertion.&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:DEL8)

Comment: Meets  per a review of available sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)