Deletion of Stupid Videos (2nd nomination)

Comment: Can someone show why it's not notable rather than just saying it isn't?   is a bad way to go about AfDs. Filtering through a couple pages of google results gives some nice, reputable sources.  I don't understand what makes this non-notable, as it's been the subject of news coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:JNN)

Comment: Fails . '''''Special:Contributions/RC-0722|K
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: as per previous nomination.  Also, you should actually search for third party references.  I believe http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS163498+07-Jan-2008+MW20080107 reuters and http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2006/07/27/fox-atomic-licenses-content-from-stupidvideos-com DMR qualify.  Also, the argument that because there are other video hosting websites is gay.  There are multiple political parties, and yet they all have articles unless they aren't notable.  Also, an Alexa rank is a bad metric to use; 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTBIGENOUGH)