Deletion of Profile Defenders (2nd nomination)

Comment: as it fails  including on Columbus Dispatch one-liner and similar cursory coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Fails ,  and DEL14. I can do a review of the refs if anybody wants it. The first 10 references are very poor
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:DEL4)

Comment: per  - I looked the page over and I honestly have no idea what it's trying to describe as its formatting and grammar are atrocious and it doesn't even describe in any clear detail what the company in question ''is'' - it seems to be a  for the legal cases it has been involved in? There's honestly probably a notable subject here but the article needs to be |blown up and started over
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:COATRACK||WP:TNT)

Comment: as I said on creation, "unlike in 2013 when it went to AFD, there are independent reliable sources". The article seems to attract a lot of attention from s
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: I disagree with a  deletion because https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Profile_Defenders&oldid=743701821 the first version of the article is a short, acceptable version that can be reverted to if there is consensus against https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Profile_Defenders&oldid=991207223 the current version.The coverage in ''The Columbus Dispatch'', ''Vice (magazine)|Vice'', and ''The Washington Post'' are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The sources include quotes from the subject but also include independent analysis and negative coverage.https://www.dispatch.com/article/20120820/NEWS/308209764 ''The Columbus Dispatch'' article includes negative coverage of Profile Defenders: "Sometimes, these online-reputation firms can get a bad rap themselves. Last month, Park Avenue Funding, a New York mortgage-investment firm, filed a suit against Profile Defenders alleging company was using confidential information to extort money from it and damage its online reputation. Ruddie, of Profile Defenders, said “the lawsuit filed by PAF is frivolous and based on assertions without merit.”"https://www.vice.com/en/article/pgkm5m/want-to-remove-a-google-result-file-a-trumped-up-lawsuit The ''Vice'' article casts Profile Defenders' work in a negative light: "Linked to at least some of the cases is a selection of companies run by a Richart Ruddie, including SEO Profile Defense Network LLC, and Profile Defenders. Profile Defenders specialises in 'online reputation management,' according to its website. In short, these companies and others are allegedly carrying out a pretty novel tactic to clean up content that would reflect negatively on its clients: filing fake lawsuits to encourage websites or online services to remove content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Court documents fail the criteria as the company is often self-described or described by the opposing litigation party (both are unreliable for the purposes of establishing notability). Many of the articles have been written by relying entirely on interviews or information provided by the company or are from blogs, or the blog sections of news websites. Others are mere mentions with no details on the company. In order to meet , a reference must contain "Independent Content" which is ''original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject''. Based on the absence of any good references for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND)

Comment: Except unlike in 2013, the appropriate guideline, , has been rewritten in parts and now provides more exacting requirements for references to establish notability. The article itself has too many references (and a lot of them are dead) and most fail the criteria for establishing notability. {{u|Tedder}}, can you provide links to the best  sources you believe meet the requirements as per  (and especially  and )? Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:THREE||WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH)