Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid Videos (2nd nomination)

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 delete per lack of sources. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid Videos

Stupid Videos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Previously not deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid Videos. I believe the website is a dime-a-dozen video hosting service; the article doesn't list any third-party references for notability. (The website's Alexa rank has been fluctuating; today it's about 10.000 and the best one is about 2.000.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, as per previous nomination. Also, you should actually search for third party references. I believe reuters and DMR qualify. Also, the argument that because there are other video hosting websites is irrelevant. There are multiple political parties, and yet they all have articles unless they aren't notable. Also, an Alexa rank is a bad metric to use; WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. Celarnor (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. Kimu 19:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, self promoting. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Can someone show why it's not notable rather than just saying it isn't? WP:JNN is a bad way to go about AfDs. Filtering through a couple pages of google results gives some nice, reputable sources. I don't understand what makes this non-notable, as it's been the subject of news coverage. Celarnor (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons given above. Also, Celarnor, the "Reuters" and I'm pretty sure DMW source as well, are press releases. Company issued. Space-filler. Not reliable sources. The article has no other reliable sources. Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 19 March 2008 (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.