Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miley Save Fuzzy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs)  19:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Miley Save Fuzzy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This topic doesn't appear to be particularly notable, especially because it seems to be a brief internet trend that died down as quickly as it began. Nearly one third of the sources provided are from MileySaveFuzzy.com itself; several other citations are random YouTube interviews and questionable websites. This topic has also failed to leave a lasting impact/legacy that would make it notable five years later, as having its own article would suggest. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, as nominator. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. For reasons mentioned in the previous time this has been discussed before. At one point it has been nominated for deletion again but that was disapproved because it has been said that once an article has been nominated for deletion, it cannot be nominated again. Not sure if this rule still applies. The article had a different title on the previous AfD so maybe that's why you missed it. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Will_Miley_Save_Fuzzy%3F Pointbl4nk (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This article lacks sufficient RS, however, a quick search indicates there are sufficient RS. Article could use a rewrite. BlueSalix (talk) 18:57, 8 February 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.