Deletion of The New Pantagruel

Comment: The reliable sources don't give the site significant coverage, and the sources that do fail  by some margin. It needs much more good quality coverage if it's ever going to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:WEB)

Comment: Fails |notability guidelines.  Trivial mention in a NYT article, along with non- citations just don't cut it.  Doesn't even meet the easier threshold of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:WEB)

Comment: A new approach that may be more productive." Would everyone agree that the fundamental disagreement here hinges on a lack of consensus on the minimum standard of non-trivial mention in a newspaper--or really any "reliable source," correct? Isn't the main sticking point specifically the meaning of the phrase "a brief summary of the nature of the content of a web publication" in the nontriviality guidelines in ? It may be better to try to clear this up, ideally by reference to specific cases in Wikipedia where online publications similar to TNP were AND were not allowed to have their own entries for reasons based on the non-triviality guideline. Can anyone provide such examples
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Who are the "editors" who support deletion? The people who originally started this are not editors. The only relevant issue is that the deletionists do not understand  and appear to be willfully misreading it, while styling any criticism of them as an "attack." This is all that matters, in 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: Deletion discussions where |notability has been questioned are not difficult.  It doesn't matter whether you think it's notable or I think it's not notable.  The only thing that matters is whether or not multiple |reliable sources exist which are |independent of the subject, and which cover the subject in a significant, non-trivial way.  Four things need to be satisfied:  '''multiple''' sources (more than 1), '''reliable''' sources (see  for a definition), '''independent''' sources (see ), and '''significant, non-trivial coverage''' (see ).  These requirements have not been satisfied for this article.  The |number of Google hits you get for searching "The New Pantagruel" is not proof of notability.  If actual reliable sources come to light, I will gladly switch my !vote to Keep.  Until that time, however, the article must be deleted.  A partial merge and redirect might be appropriate, although it's unclear if any of the info in this article can actually be sourced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:SEC||WP:RS||WP:SEC||WP:GNG||WP:GHITS)