Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheLadders.com (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheLadders.com

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meeanaya what is your WP:BEFORE assessment of the discussion and the sources identified in the previous AfD which led to its Keep conclusion? AllyD (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this AfD should succeed where the last one failed. The sourcing is decent enough. Keep. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found new WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources at Slate and HuffPost and significant recent news about it from May 2019 at TechCrunch. Passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:57, 30 October 2019 (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.