Deletion of Kate's Playground (second nomination)

Comment: per nom.  Clearly fails .  I echo much of the above, viz. if the article is recrafted about the person, that might be different
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: This is (at least) the second nomination for this topic; why isn't the earlier one(s) linked here?  I see the article no longer contains one of the claims of notability:  That her malformed foot has made her notorious among people who pay attention to this sort of thing.  '''No vote''' but I haven't been persuaded that the website meets , nor that the person meets 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:BIO)

Comment: First of all, I am among those who looked this page up out of curiosity, as this model does seem to be rather ubiquitous on the Internet.  While this may not be the place to question , I would argue that there is some bias in the criteria's demand for websites to have been noted in print.  Alexa.com has Kate's Playground ranked about 5,000th in Internet traffic, whereas Maddox (writer)|Maddox's website is ranked about 6,500th and This Week in Tech's website is ranked below 10,000th.  I'm certainly not saying Kate's Playground is the most interesting of these sites, just that it is extremely popular on the Internet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)