Deletion of Jesus isn't a dick keep him out of my vagina

Comment: No indication of lasting significance fails /. Is it getting |cold in here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NEVENT||WP:SNOW)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: unsurprisingly, as the first person to revert one of the four attempts so far to get this deleted (with a different rationale each time, natch). One could maybe make a tenuous case for  but you're not making it.  has nothing to do with this and I don't think it means what you think it means. Given the widespread coverage of this particular sign, as opposed to the protests in general, I don't think it's appropriate for merging to a more general article on the protests, while your weird claim about the sources is just bizarre - since when has "based on a interview with the creator" been grounds for disallowing a source regarding a work?&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:FUTURE)

Comment: per Vanisaac and Yogesh Khandke. Not really ''routine'' news, so it passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:N does not include ''fad-of-day-which-goes-viral''. This kind of new item is the ''raison d-être'' for —come back in a year when secondary sources have done an analysis of the significance of the topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)