Deletion of Agents of Secret Stuff (2010)

Comment: per Mr. Schmidt. At the risk of sounding , I'm not sure how this is any less notable than any YouTube personality or production with coverage in mainstream press
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: Before we all rush off to grab a salt-shaker for an amateurly-written stub that was brought back without any sourcing or "major" imrovements,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agents_of_Secret_Stuff_(2010)&diff=498612491&oldid=prev&unhide=1 how about looking past its http://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Agents+of+Secret+Stuff+%282010%29%22&num=50#q=%22Agents+of+Secret+Stuff%22&hl=en&prmd=imvnsa&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=q4_nT4-QCsaA2wXDxZDaCQ&ved=0CBIQ_AUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ef3e1d785cd21160&biw=855&bih=514 massive amount of blog coverage to see if any reliable sources speak toward the topic in enough detail so that we might expand the article to add sourced encyclopdic content and THEN determine if it ekes up on the notability criteria of . Sure... the deletions of stubs in November 2010 and July 2011 may have been reasonable per lack of sources then... but the phenomenom released in November 2010 has spread and sources are available that were not in earlier AFDs. |Expansion and improvement has already begun.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agents_of_Secret_Stuff_%282010%29&diff=499201399&oldid=499076678  I believe the project is benefited by retaining finally this article which '''now''' has the context, sourcing, and enough encyclopdic information to serve the project and its readers in Agents of Secret Stuff (2010)|THIS version
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF||WP:HANDLE)