Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boobquake
Before I start to explain why the page should not be deleted, please let me establish my credibility, such as it is, by pointing out that I was the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer McCreight. (''That'' page is now a redirect to the page under discussion here. And there actually was a consensus in that discussion that ''this'' page, about the event, clearly deals with a subject that satisfies our notability criteria.) So I'm not merely making an "I like it" argument for keeping. No, the page should be kept for the simple reason that it clearly passes . Unfortunately, a lot of the nomination rationale is a textbook example of . Although ''some'' of the sourcing is based on blogs as the nominator claims, let's look at other sourcing on the page. The ''New York Times'' covered the events that triggered the protest. The protest itself became the central topic (not "and finally") of articles in the ''Toronto Star'', ''Daily Mail'', ''Paris Herald'', ''Washington Examiner'', ''The Independent'', and ''Vanity Fair''. No matter how you parse it, the page satisfies  (and there's no problem with 
— User:Tryptofish, 20:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG||WP:NOT (Wikipedia:Notability)