Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid.com

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 of the debate was KEEP —Whouk (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid.com

Failure to meet WP:WEB. Andre 20:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Actually it doesn;t it is a notable site which got some awards and was featured on CNN if that's not notable what is? --Deathvader 13:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete My problem with the article is the lack of any articles cited or any notability listed. If you find anything, I'll have no problem.--Andre 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• I think your problem is that I nominated your article Rare Witch Project so in turn you nominated an article I made for deletion. Anyways all the information comes directly from the site itself and notabilty Pc Games has named stupid.com on theirtop 100 sites and won some awards http://www.stupid.com/Cliff/awards.html so I don;t see how it fails to meet that. --Deathvader 19:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep It was featured on Good Morning America, which has a pretty huge audience. For what it's worth, I've ordered from Stupid.com before and have always had positive experiences, so I might be slightly biased. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Not as notable as Mattel or Nintendo, but it seems to have sufficient coverage. Interlingua ^talk 23:37, 14 June 2006 (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.