Deletion of Fram controversy

Comment: to List of Wikipedia controversies. The main reason I think the article should be merge is because of  and . Only two news source talks about it, which is not enough to pass 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: per Drmies. Way too small currently to be kept. It's  to suggest more sources will surface
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: to List of Wikipedia controversies. As noted by others above, there is no evidence of  coverage. This incident is very important to Wikipedia editors, but as yet is not a topic that has received widespread coverage in independent reliable sources outside Wikipedia
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: to {{slink|List of Wikipedia controversies|2019}} and {{slink|User revolt|Wikimedia Foundation ban of Fram}} per . This incident does not meet , as ''BuzzFeed News'' is the only qualifying source. "Reclaim the Net" is a blog with no listed editorial team that is https://who.is/whois/reclaimthenet.org less than a year old and not established enough to be a |reliable source for assessing |notability. Breitbart News {{rspe|Breitbart News}} is a |deprecated source and its unreliability was confirmed in a {{rsnl||Breitbart as a source for criticism of Wikipedia|noticeboard discussion}} earlier this week. —&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Merging (WP:OVERLAP||WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:DEPS)

Comment: There are at least two articles on this now. Seems to pass . Otherwise  per the above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:IAR)

Comment: per  and . Merge to user revolt clearly fails , while merge to Wikipedia controversies may fail 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:DUE)