Deletion of Group-Office (third nomination)

Comment: Seems straightforward. "I like it! I like it!" doesn't trump basic |verifiability from |reliable sources, and the "keep-because-enough-people-said-'I like it! I like it!'-very-recently" rationales are pure bureaucratic nitpicking
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Where's the 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per everyone above for failing the notability guidelines. Wikipedia is driven by '''consensus, NOT voting''', and the "keepers" have not provided a single stitch of evidence indicating notability and verifiabilty per the required guidelines. Per Proto above, , hand-waving and arguing the ''process'' are not valid keep reasons
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Just about every above reason to keep is invalid and based on either 'I like it', or 'it's been nomninated before!!!'.  The topic lacks any evidence of notability, lacking multiple non-trivial references as per .  The hand-wringing about 'oh my god, it's been nominated before!! RECENTLY!! are irrelevant.  Two months ago is not particularly recent when the article is so fundamentally lacking in evidence for its assertions of notability, and voting 'keep' on procedural grounds because of this is disruptive, and ignorant of Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability (see that little message at the bottom of the editing window?) The article was only restored at DRV because DRV is a purely head-counting exercise, so is easily subverted, and this has some very dedicated people who want it kept regardless of basic fundamental |policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:V)