Deletion of Jersey Circus (2nd nomination)

Comment: as the article crosses both the notability and verifiability thresholds. Unclear on the benefits ''to the reader'' of a merger with the ''Family Circus'' and ''Jersey Shore (TV series)|Jersey Shore'' articles. Per , "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: The sources are just brief blog posts, failing the "significance" standard of Wikipedia:Notability. It has no awards which would meet Wikipedia:Notability (web). All sources are from a three-day period in 2010, so it's pretty clear this has no historical significance (See 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTGUIDE)

Comment: nbsp; By the recentism argument of the nomination, 1930 Palm Island tragedy also has a ecentism problem, because the article depends on 1930 newspapers.&nbsp; The recentism argument was used in the first AfD, which lacked the perspective of time that we now have, and what we have now is that this blog is as timeless as Family Circus.&nbsp; I've looked at four of the sources and the blog itself, I glanced at the first page of the Google results, I don't see spending more time working up the nomination rationale, which work may or may not lead me to conclude this article should be deleted or merged instead of kept.&nbsp; Are these writers well-enough known for these blog sources to be considered reliable?&nbsp; What happens on the second page of the Google links, etc.?&nbsp; I don't see that a contributor to the AfD here has reported on a search for more sources.&nbsp; Is there any evidence that we are linking to a page of copyright violation?&nbsp; Is there already material on the two merger targets mentioned by the nomination, or is this a do-it-yourself merger project?&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)