Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will 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   no consensus. No consensus whether or not this meets WP:NOTNEWS, or if the individual reliable sources are enough to have this as a standalone article. NW ( Talk ) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Will Miley Save Fuzzy?

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Page created as pure promotion of nonsensical Web site. Attempted to flag for speedy and was rebuffed. mhking (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , , , , , , , , and . Joe Chill (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We shouldn't give an additional free hit to some crazy fan who needs less attention, more heavy counseling or a commitment. It's sourced as seen above, but by either pop fan blogs, Digg clones, extensions of tabloids or in the case of Cnet, just passing along the 'hot thing' in the blogosphere, which are all disqualified by WP:ELNO.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is indeed mentioned on some blogs and gossip sites, however, the fact that some of those blogs are MSN/MTV-affiliated, and that it is also mentioned on Cnet, E! Online, The Daily Telegraph, the Washington Post blog as well as the well-known Perez Hilton blog and the Spanish Europa Press news agency should be enough. The site was also featured on the German Bravo magazine. I'm not trying to promote the website, I'm even against it, but it has already received a lot of attention and I can't imagine being on Wikipedia would make anything worse. Miley herself has responded to the campaign in several interviews. Other websites with a similar premise (Save Toby/Save Bernd) are featured in Wikipedia, so I don't see why this shouldn't be. People who seek information regarding this, should be able to find it here. --Pointbl4nk (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleteper WP:NOTNEWS (""Routine news coverage of such things as [...] tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"). The fact that this is happening and is being commented on does not make it encyclopedic.  In the alternative, redirect to a mention in Miley Cyrus. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not covered in enough reliable sources, WP:NOTNEWS, ect.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to have received a good deal of coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2009 (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.