Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Answerbag

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 speedy keep as a bad faith nom by a possible WP:SPA TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answerbag

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet the criteria for notability. As it exists, it is little more than an advertisement for the site. Medusa1122 (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Jennifer500 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [9], [10], [11], [12] (all four from above links), [13], and [14] (continue scrolling down). Joe Chill (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Also, This is Alexa's stats on the site. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 09:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A website in the Alexa top 1500 is highly likely to be notable, and the sources seem to support this. That said, the article isn't very good and a good chunk of the current content is trivia which should be removed (the "Levels and ranks" section, for example). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I click the Google news search up top of this AFD, and I see plenty of results mentioning it, including a CNET review, and a review in the New Zealand Herald. Please search for references before nominating something for deletion. It doesn't take that long. Dream Focus 20:02, 9 January 2010 (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.