Deletion of SpinnWebe

Comment: first off, this is a recreation of a deleted page, albeit with some additional content.  secondly, it fails  because I don't accept the argument that Dysfunctional Family Circus confers notability back on SpinnWebe.  DFC is notable and has it's own article but in all the referenced material about DFC linked in the SpinnWebe article, SpinnWebe is never mentioned, or just linked to the DFC section of the site.  Show me an article in a widely read publication that is primarily about SpinnWebe and I'll recondsider, but based on all evidence provided, SpinnWebe is worthy of a mention in the Dysfunctional Family Circus article and that is about it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Regardless of procedural concerns, the article itself clearly qualifies under  for the New Yorker and Internet Underground write-ups alone
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I think it does meet , and IMHO, being the home of DFC alone gives it a passing grade
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I'm'' not a meatpuppet, and I think we should toss that accusation around less casually. There have been a number of recent AfD nominations of sites that were once extremely notable, but less so lately—this is one, Mirsky's Worst of the Web is another. These are historically important sites for the web, and I think they deserve keeping on those grounds—otherwise, as sites slip into the past, we'll be deleting our communal memory too. There's a difference netween brand-new sites no one's heard of—the situations  is really designed for—and once-notable sites that are now history. What's suck.com's Alexa rating nowadays? What will it be in five years? It doesn't matter, it's significant as an important aspect of the web's development. SpinnWebe was once very well-known and even got some mainstream press, but its notoriety was largely in pre-google days and it isn't very well-known now except for the Dysfunctional Family Circus flap. Admittedly, it never had the following of Suck, and the suggestion to merge it into the Dysfunctional Family Circus isn't totally off-base, but on balance I say keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: This isn't a discussion, it's a circus.  I don't see any attempt to build Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus here -- just a lot of back and forth argument.  |Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of links or a place where everyone should get their particular pet project mentioned.  That's why I said the original article was "not encyclopedic": it appeared to be just a page to promote Spinnwebe and to ensure that they're represented on Wikipedia.  Since this particular tempest in a teapot has been ignited, the current article on Spinnwebe has actually improved somewhat, to a point where it shows some notability.  (Not a lot in today's current Web environment, but the DFC flap makes it notable in a historic context.)  I'm not entering a '''keep''' vote here -- just urging a little bit of sanity.  Otherwise, some administrator will just close this AfD with a result of "no consensus
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The Dysfunctional Family Circus was hosted on SpinnWebe but that in itself does not make it notable.  Is there some criteria in  that this site meets?  Image:Monkeyman.png
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I am ''not'' a meat puppet - please take a look at my contributions if you doubt that.  The page ''was'' re-created after an AfD but has improved since its recreation to the point that it is now a much better article: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpinnWebe&diff=40799910&oldid=40659922 the diff between the recreated article and the current one.  The section on media coverage of the DFC controversy clearly fulfills point 1 of .  I can understand the desire to punish those who recreate after an AfD, but in this case the system is working - the originally AfD'd page was not a good article, but the current one is and should be kept.  (That is also why speedy deletion was not appropriate here - it was not simple recreation but actual article improvement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I think that it meets  with criteria 1 (Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address) and 3 (The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)