- 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 a clear consensus for delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yardsaledb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
nn website Amocool (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep No evidence of NN, there is no requirement for specific websitse to be of certain alexa ranking or traffic hits to be considered NN. Meets criteria #2 set forth at Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.41.108 (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2009
- Which award was that and from what site? This isn't included in the article. Greg Tyler (t • c) 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources, not notable. Greg Tyler (t • c) 14:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only reference given was a pick of the day, that's it. That doesn't really make it notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: No, there is no black letter Alexa ranking beyond which a website is deemed notable, but an Alexa ranking of over #3,400,000 completely, utterly sucks; for pity's sake, my own website (which is closed to non-members and only HAS a dozen permitted members right now) does better than that. As far as passing criteria #2 goes, a "well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization," I wouldn't pick a webpage with a traffic rank of its own around #30,000. RGTraynor 09:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only barely passes the speedy deletion criterion for web content with a mention on another website which itself may or may not meet the guidelines for inclusion. decltype (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And which, in any event, doesn't have an article itself, which doesn't speak well of its widespread notability as an award-giver. RGTraynor 15:06, 3 August 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.