Deletion of Nyu Media (2nd nomination)

Comment: and source check) "different weight attributed to sources and analysis against " was the closing remark. Regarding AfD timing, the Talk:Nyu Media#Timeline is the reason. Revisiting after new analysis (with the new sources): Yeah it's a single source, the first source checked, refuting that they are all ''per se'' independent RS per . All but 8-10 are routine product announcements per spirit of  (although wording says "simple statements
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: The last AfD closed as "no consensus" ''less than a week'' ago. The close rationale was not a carte blanche to renominate as soon as the article expanded. To the point, this article topic has |significant coverage in multiple |reliable, |independent sources, as demonstrated by its current sourcing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:IS)

Comment: This may not be the most appropriate forum to discuss the general question of how to determine when a news source crosses the line from sloppily using language directly from a press release to recycling a press release for "churnalistic" purposes. Rather, a discussion at WP:RSN may be in order. The duplication detector results presented here do suggest that one of the IndieGames.com articles has used a press release, but even if we exclude it the article is still left with 10 apparent RSes. Each of these would have to be knocked down in order to find that the topic fails GNG. I can agree that the sources need checking, but that's something that is supposed to occur  nominating at AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)