Deletion of Occupy Marines (2nd nomination)

Comment: Sourced to CBS News, ABC News, ''The Nation'' magazine... What kind of  disruption is this?!?! Snow this shut
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Not enough  that aren't primary sources or passing mentions to pass any sort of notability guideline. The only notability it ''does'' have is from the Occupy Wall Street movement. This is simply Wikicanvassing and nothing more
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The last AfD clearly established that the subject has recieved |significant coverage in |reliable third party sources and meets the |notability guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IRS||WP:N)

Comment: By definition, blogs are an  and not considered a reliable source per .  Clearly these do not fit into the Subject Matter Expert caveat in the guideline; the comments about "citizen journalism" are clearly made in ignorance of policy.  The "group" appears to be little more than a few individuals on a facebook page and does not meet notability guidelines.  Per  I do not consider this is worthy of an article in its own rights and at most would merit a footnote on the article dealing with the Occupy protests
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:RS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Entry is in compliance with 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I managed to find this discussion after seeing the notice on the article (which unhelpfully links to just the general deletion category, and not here)... isn't it strange there's no link from the primary article? I created a link from the talk page, so that more people will be able to easily find it. Further, I did a quick |google search and did find them mentioned on major news outlets... this portion of the OWS movement appears  enough to me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Search engine test (WP:GOOGLE||WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: Fails  since there are no articles primarily about it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Seems to lack notability as such fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The opposition to this page is ridiculous. To raise a second objection when there has already been discussion and a decision to keep the entry so recently smacks of political motivation. You repeatedly raise the issue of |GNG. Instead of throwing out an acronym say General Notability Guidelines and then say this entry doesn't meet that requirement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Article does in fact meet .  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20124777/semper-fi-non-active-marines-called-to-occupy CBS news, http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/offduty/travel/offduty-occupy-protests-lure-vets-111711/ Marine Corps Times, http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-marines-shamar-thomas-2011-10#ixzz1ergH26e0 Business Insider and http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/occupy-veterans-movement-growing/story?id=14848003#.Tshyh0-9ng0 ABC News are NOT trivial sources. Are they, "tweets and facebook posts"? No, not at all! This entry also meets |Significant coverage, Reliable and Independent of the subject Yes, that is . Also, this article meets |Depth of coverage, Audience and Independence of sources.  External links could use a clean up per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:LINKSTOAVOID)

Comment: First off, this is a bad AfD nomination. If the nominator had an issue with how the prior AfD was closed (only a few short weeks ago), then they should have taken it to . But, I doubt that would have done anything, as the coverage of this group appears to be extensive, which i'll list below
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: As even one of the delete voters admits, two of the sources are entirely about Occupy Marines: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20124777/semper-fi-non-active-marines-called-to-occupy/ ABS & http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-marines-shamar-thomas-2011-10#ixzz1ergH26e0 businessinsider Even if not for this, much of the delete arguments are clearly not based on policy. They've been arguing as though we need sources entirely dedicated to a subject in order to keep it, but  specifically rejects this "...it need not be the main topic of the source material." After reviwing all the sources in the article, this important and worthy topic seems to have sufficient coverage to meet GNG several times over, so agree its an easy keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: there is significant coverage in the new stories directly addressing the topic. AFD is not cleanup--if there are problems, fix them. I note that the last AFD closed less than two weeks ago, if the closure is disputed, |DRV is thataway, renominating an article so quickly is not exactly good form
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: as the notability of the article's subject was established just a few days ago. In this discussion (as in the previous one) I see many  and , but, considering the sources this is (and remain) an easy keep per |GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: Handily meets  by being covered in ''The Nation'', ABC news, CBS news, ''Business Insider'', and the ''Marine Corps Times
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)