Deletion of Anti-cnn

Comment: While a few of the sources are inadequately cited and irrelevant to Anti-cnn, most do refer to Anti-cnn by name and often Anti-cnn is a central theme. Other users advocating deletion here clearly have not bothered to read the sources at all or have no understanding of . Anti-cnn has undisputedly gained significant notability on its own and this is ''not'' . CCTV, the most prominent television network in China, interviewed its creator. The Japanese Sankei Shimbun newspaper is another example of prominent media that is completely about the website. I believe a rewrite is needed in the article, but definitely not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: To nom - may I ask how it is an attack page, which you just added as a reason for deletion? Currently, half of the page is devoted to CNN and Der Spiegel's responses. The rest are mostly quotes and basic information. By every definition it is ''not'' an |attack page, nor . While I intend to display good faith, my feeling is that your nomination is extremely biased and shows a fundamental lack of consideration and understanding of Wikipedia policies. Orangemike's reason is a legitimate suggestion but ultimately false and shows a lack of research, considering the many sources in the article which directly contradicts what he says. I urge admins to close this ridiculous nomination and praise the contributors who were able to build a well-cited, well-written and NPOV article for a very sensitive subject, in a very short period. I intend to nominate the article for DYK
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATP||WP:SOAP)

Comment: I'd like to point out that WP is not a paper encyclopedia - .  This is why WP's notability guideline has no rule on so-called "legacy" or the length of time of a subject's notability, and it's why, I suspect,  remains only an essay of opinions, and not a policy or guideline.  There's no practical limit on the number of topics WP can cover.  And with notability clearly established, there's no reason why the subject does not deserve its own article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER||WP:RECENT)

Comment: The content is notable and has |reliable sources but the article's name isn't |neutral. There's the last statement that anti-xinghua.com website is already made, but we can't keep creating the same articles for each website. So the website maynot be notable but the content is. I think it's better to merge the content to 2008 Tibetan unrest
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Article is written in an NPOV manner, covering views from opposing sides, so I don't see how it is in violation of . And apparently it is a notable topic, having been referred to by CCTV, CNN, Der Spiegel, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: There are  issues here, but I think they can be fixed. With regard to notability, it seems just barely established. (And I think better links can be found further establish 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:N)