Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everipedia (2nd nomination)
I agree with {{u|Staszek Lem}} that the first AFD close appeared to ignore weight of argument, although I guess DR would technically be the venue for that discussion. However, we are where we are, without any sources that are not PR puff, and none that are reliable and independent. The article creator is still citing  when it has been explained to him that has no relevance at all to sourcing notability, and  without providing any. Again, despite previous explanations that it has no bearing on notability, he continues to list instances of journalists scraping minor factoids or second hand images from Everipedia, which has no relevance to whether GNG is met (it isn't) and amounts to nothing more than lazy journalists scraping an unreliable source from a web search. I truly hope we are better than that.  Selectively canvassing editors who have agreed in the past, as he does here, is also a huge red flag, and impermissible
— [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]], 07:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GOOGLECHECK||WP:SIGCOV (Wikipedia:Search engine test)