- 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reddit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I don't see how this website meets WP:N, and no one argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, please. — Dædαlus Contribs 06:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fairly well-known site, gets a reasonable number of Google news hits. Should be no problem establishing notability through reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of google hits does not establish notability.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on news coverage. WillOakland (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well known web site, easily meets WP:N. JulesH (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fairly well-referenced article on a well known site. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. --Canley (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It meets Notability guidelines by having several non-trivial articles published about it in reliable publications. - Mgm|(talk) 11:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Per noted above.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.