Deletion of For the Love of Meghan (2nd nomination)

Comment: There just isn't enough coverage in  to justify a keep. Sure, there's mention in ''The Star'' - but that's all it is. A mention. There's nothing about this to bring it up to WP's standards of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Yeah, it passes  according to the letter, but not the spirit - a couple of cute human-interest stories in local papers just don't constitute "multiple" in any encyclopedically meaningful way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is an odd AfD... partly because at least one of the sources being used to justify its inclusion CITES this very wikipedia article (http://www.mtv.ca/news/fullpost.jhtml?id=887 MTV Canada news that reads like a blog). xkcd is a genius. Digressing... most of the sources don't meet our  criteria or indicate notability. For instance, funeral home and memorial listings are not indications of notability. Some others are primary sources to the site itself, or their facebook page. Then there's a few blog posts on there. The ones that do meet  from my brief review are: http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4267271/for-the-love-of-meghan/?playlist_id=86984 Alan Colmes interview, CBC interview (the link doesn't seem to be of that video so I can't asses how notable it is), http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2653505&archive=true The Observer article, http://www.petroliatopic.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2615259&archive=true this, and then of course The Star. The interviews are technically primary sources, and some of the newspapers seem like local newspaper stories. However, ''The Star'' article is large and has a wide distribution. I think that pushes it into notable territory. I agree with Herostratus' general statement though that any mention isn't enough. There are way too many instances where we have someone who appeared in a hometown paper article and that gets touted as sufficient to be notable. I don't buy that. But here it's a major paper with large coverage and a few other appearances. I think it's borderline but probably just enough
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: has significant coverage http://www.thestar.com/living/article/829909--unfinished-business-how-one-man-keeps-his-late-wife-s-memory-alive http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2653505&archive=true. "GNG or no, I don't see this as notable" is an  argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per Lithorien and Roscelese. Not enough 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)