Deletion of Little Face Mitt (2nd nomination)

Comment: per .  No evidence exists that this is any more notable than it was 6 months ago.  If this debate follows the previous one, get ready for a wave of sockpuppets begging to get it kept with little or no reasoning
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: for easily meeting . With 25 valid sources, 10 of which are '''solidly''' valid, there is no legitimate way to argue against this article's notability. It may not be the most notable thing to ever happen, but the coverage it received during and after the election certainly assert long-lasting notability and the flurry of images doctored to have little faces (Kim Jong-Un comes to mind) after Little Face Mitt hit the scene speaks volumes to its influence. While not a game changer, it was undoubtedly a widely seen contribution to the social media aspect of the 2012 election and in a bizarre way could be said to have influenced the way candidates are treated online. As for network coverage, Little Face Mitt was covered by both MSNBC and The Young Turks and was featured in several nationally read newspapers and online venues. And it is my belief that the two votes for delete prior to my vote should be afforded little to no credence because they offer no valid arguments and instead resort of a continued violation of  based on personal emotion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PA)

Comment: or '''redirect''' as suggested above (which are perfectly valid contributions to this discussion) - I participated in the DRV discussion and nothing offered there convinced me that this subject is notable. Most of the sources provided thus far are examples of the meme, not explanations of what it is, how it started, etc. Examples without context don't make for very good sources at all - they could hardly be considered "significant coverage". The fact that youtube videos and twitter feeds (obviously not reliable sources) have been included in the source list just make it even harder to wade through to the one or two articles in the list that ''might'' be considered . I'm just not convinced that there's enough of a lasting impact and longevity of coverage to suggest this was more than a flash in the pan during the election. Funny? Sure. |Notable? Not really
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: as far as I can tell there has been no valid policy-based reason given for deletion.  A wave at been made at .   says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."  That seems to be easily met.  And in any case, this clearly meets  with plenty of room to spare so the subject guideline just doesn't matter
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:N)

Comment: to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Media issues; although I still hold the opinion that the subject of this AfD still has not received |significant coverage in multiple non-primary |reliable sources I would understand the argument that the subject of this AfD falls within the scope of the article ''Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012'', as it pertains to the subject of that article's media perception, a summarization, merger, and redirect would be an alternative to outright deletion. That being said I would not be opposed to deletion as the subject does not appear to be notable as a standalone subject
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS)