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. MBisanztalk 02:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web site; all references fail WP:RS, can't find anything reliable to indicate notability Blowdart | talk 20:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources are either primary, or non-notable blogs. Cynical (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rapid growth is not a indication of enc notability. Reliable third party sources completely lacking. Mfield (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Google News yields one unrelated result, Google itself has lots of self-references, or unreliable blogs or trivial mentions. A single controversy only picked up by a handful of blogs doesn't make a website notable. - Mgm|(talk) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources establishing notability and verifying the article facts. Wiw8 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - scarcely even a claim of Notability in the wiki sense. No WP:RS for any WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2008 (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.