Deletion of Objection!

Comment: small community" meaning it has yet to be mentioned in a |non-trivial, reliable source ala All Your Base and Leeroy Jenkins. Wikipedia is about |verifiabiliy, not truth. We can not go on your saying the page is popular, since that is |original research. We also can not add content to a Wikipedia article going on what the webmaster reports to users here, since information added needs to '''that have already been published by reputable publishers''' (
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:V)

Comment: Okay, then I'm blind. Unique hits, anyone? Or non-page-specific hits? (Besides that, still doesn't do much for the |web guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: The thing is that both of those articles have |reliable sourcing in non-trivial publications, as per criteria. This article (at this present time) has yet to reach other media then a small community
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: minor internet meme with |unverifiable claims of notability. Note that we '''cannot''' take the site's own word for the number of views it has received or the amount of bandwidth it uses! It is '''not''' a |reliable source. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Not the concern. It's  and that the Wikipedia strives to be (mostly) encyclopedic
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: In no way does this in any way meet Wikipedia's standards for |reliable sources and |verifiability.  Much content of the article as it stands is original research as well.  At most, this gets a mention in the main article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: It must meet some sort of |verifiability as well as some |criteria for notablility; in this case, 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:WEB)