Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For the Love of Meghan (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Shadowjams, 01:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)