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.
Keep Plenty of sources seem to indicate
WP:GNG is met, plus remember
WP:NTEMP -that it was mostly discussed between April and May 2014 does not mean it stops being notable in 2016. Also, that a source discusses it, albeit briefly, in 2016, indicates some evidence of ongoing notability. --
cyclopiaspeak! 21:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Many sources. Although they might have been ephemeral, the amount of attention devoted to this seems to be enough.—
azuki (
talk·contribs·email) 03:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets GNG with coverage in reliable sources. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs)~ 13:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per above comments.
Aoba47 (
talk) 18:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, meets
WP:GNG, although some of the article references may be deemed unsuitable for notability and/or be "local", it has enough to get over the notability line and with above sources listed by
Northamerica1000 easily exceeds it.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 07:52, 4 November 2016 (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.