Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupidedia (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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Lack of effort in improving an article is irrelevant to its potential state. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 07:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidedia[edit]

Does not appear notable-if anything it is unsourced. Egebwc (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, WP:WEB for speedy, if there ever was one. §FreeRangeFrog 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I assumed WP:WEB because both references linked to the same website, but after going through the page I see that it does establish notability, at least in Germany. §FreeRangeFrog 21:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable website. Matt (Talk) 03:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the references found by all the participants in the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupidedia. Those sources are enough to establish notability per WP:WEB. The nom has not disproved any of the references in the previous discussion, so this is an easy keep. Remember, there is no deadline to articles being improved. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per Cunard. Matt (Talk) 04:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first afd. There are enough web hits to make it notable. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems that notability can be established per WP:WEB. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 05:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It can clearly be referenced. Not being referenced is not the same as unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why have none of those sources been added to the article since the first AFD back in July? They have to actually be in the article. Based on the article itself, I would have to say Delete. TJ Spyke 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SOFIXIT. There is no deadline to improving articles on Wikipedia. The sources should be in the article, but many of the editors here do not speak fluent German (including me), so we are uncomfortable with using a translation tool to expand and source the article. I've listed this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany, so maybe someone who knows German can expand it. Cunard (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'd like to add to that, that it's more productive to find someone who is qualified to add the sources mentioned in an earlier AFD rather than trying to get it deleted, when people are going to cite said sources again. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - Per the comments above... laziness != non-notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:04, 9 February 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.