Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me at the zoo (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Clear consensus to Keep (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 01:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Me at the zoo
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't follow notability guidelines Rectar2 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep How so? Its gotten years worth of coverage from reputable media sources in both the United States and Great Britain. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to have gotten the amount of in-depth secondary coverage by reliable sources that it deserves, and I guess that establishes its notability.BayShrimp (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage found in multiple reliable independent sources. Philg88 ♦talk 06:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - If deletionists had there way there would be no content on this website at all!, Passes GNG with flying colours!. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  10:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a dyed-in-the-wool deletionist, I resent that remark. Why, on a good day, I'd allow one article, and if I'm in a really good mood, two. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: It meets WP:GNG and is therefore notable.  I'm a bit intrigued at why the nominator chose to nominate this.  The prior nomination in 2011 was also screwy.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This should be SNOW KEEPed without futher ado. Plenty of WP:RS and obvious notability. Why was this nominated? Was WP:BEFORE forgotten? --Jersey92 (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Plenty of reliable sources; meets notaility. Questionable nomination. United States Man (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.