Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid.com (3rd 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Stupid.com (3rd nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prior deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now back here. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete once and for all. - Richard Cavell 07:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT (paragraph 5) covers this case. Sancho (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not just a description of the website. There's a section on public controversy, which someone should cite soon. –Pomte 15:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried hard to find references for this controversy, but can find none. This is why I didn't consider the contribution of that section on my opinion that WP:NOT (paragraph 5) covers this case. The controversy section might even be a hoax section. Sancho (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, appears to meet WP:CORP given the sources provided at the DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I nominated the article for the second deletion debate, and I have yet to change my mind. YechielMan 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notable for the stupid stuff they sell. Nardman1 00:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I mentioned in the previous AfD it meets WP:WEB by being featured on the Food Network and "Good Morning America," and on PC Magazine's 2004 "top 100 sites you can't live without.", as well as the additional reliable sources that people pointed out at DRV. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Does WP:WEB overrule WP:NOT paragraph 5? If so, we should remove paragraph 5. Sancho (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that last thing I wrote sounds kind of snarly... I'm actually curious though. Why doesn't paragraph 5 apply here? Is it because it is possible to develop this article to something more than a description of the website? That argument would make sense. However, it isn't clear that it will be possible to do that. I've looked at the references from the DRV, and it still seems like all that we'll be able to come up with is a description of the website. Sancho (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:WEB overrules it, I think it more establishes that the article can exist based on notability. WP:NOT paragraph 5 concerns deleting an article based on the content, which I think can be fixed. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I have just added 3 newspaper references.  And, lets get those other references mentioned above into the article.DGG 04:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, for now - As it is the site meets WP:WEB, but fails WP:NOT #5. It's possible the article can be improved enough to pass the latter, hence why I recommend keeping it for now, tagging it appropriately, and checking on it in a few months.  If it hasn't been expanded enough to pass WP:NOT then, nuke it. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see multiple non-trivial references, and that's good enough to establish notability. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Disagree with above comment, trivial non-notable website. OverlordQ 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * O RLY? Check out this source list from Google News. Major newspapers like the NY Times and Washington Post, major wire services like AP, Knight-Ridder and UPI, even some foreign coverage in papers from England, Australia, and Canada. I went ahead and added a few to the article, but you could literally spend hours reading the news mentions on this company... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do they give us more than a description of the website and its services? Sancho (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems tht some of them do, yes. There are ones that cite it as the preeminent website of its type, some that recount the history of the site, and some that treat the founder as an authority on cheap novelty crap as a result of his experiences with the site, all of which seem like articulations of Stupid.com's "achievements, impact or historical significance", per WP:NOT #5. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as the DRV nominator who found the sources to get it overturned. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 21:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on multiple non-trivial references in reliable sources. Good work by Z-man, DGG, and Hit bull in improving this article. PubliusFL 04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the good sources dug up at DRV. bbx 09:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep reliable sources have been provided.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not worth its own article.W1k13rh3nry 01:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep.com. Meets and exceeds WP:WEB suggested guidelines, frankly I'm surprised so many people are attempting to stonewall the growth of this article.  RFerreira 05:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the abundance of non-trivial third party references, this definitely meets WP:WEB standards. Burntsauce 20:08, 29 March 2007 (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.