Deletion of Exscientologykids.com

Comment: There is significant coverage by multiple RS, therefore meets . Examples: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2004259790_scientology05.html , http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=4702271&page=1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  coverage has to be ''significant''.  Here is the policy language: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  Is the sourcing mentioned above more than "trivial"?  I'm not convinced that it is and am leaning towards delete, but I'd be glad to change my mind should someone prove otherwise
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Satisfies  has multiple  from sources that span a 2 year timespan which demonstrates sustainability of the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:RS)