The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FabFitFun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable, WP:SERIESA, WP:NCORP not met. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as TechnoTalk's arguments make sense as there's WP:SIGCOV on the company. SWinxy (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After reviewing the sources provided by TechnoTalk, I am not seeing a good argument for deletion. The sources are in-depth and independent and satisfy the criteria at both WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. I honestly am perplexed on how an experienced reviewer like HighKing could come to the conclusion above. I’d be hard pressed arguing deletion using a detailed source analysis because the sources are strong (by lined authors in notable publications that are not primarily interviews, but provide original analysis and are therefore independent and in-depth).4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.