Deletion of Amirite

Comment: I agree with the above and believe this entry also complies with  and . Also agree that this has been vetted by an experienced editor. --NickAang
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WEB)

Comment: Craddock1.  First, no one, especially not the admins, care about the users that are weighing in on this AfD, other than if they are socks.  This is about the article, not personalities, so please |assume good faith and lay off the negative comments about other editors' motivations or background.  I would especially be careful about the latter, as WP has a strict policy about |outing.  What happens off-wiki is not relevant to this discussion.  The |notability (or lack thereof) of the article is what is at issue.What you need to concentrate on is |reliable and |verifiable sources.  Backlinks don't count, nor do |self-published accounts, such as press releases.If the article has won a significant award, then a reliable source, and likely multiple reliable sources should cover it.  The fact that Jimbo was a judge is not significant as far as notability.  If you doubt that, ask him on his talkpage - Jimbo actually reads it and responds.  Focus on the article, not editors
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:OUTING||WP:NN||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:SELF)

Comment: Non-notable.  All the references are ≠ .  And would an administrator please consider removing the personal attacks on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Fails to meet . Press releases, user-submitted content, and multiple citations of the same hyped-up material reproduced on different sources don't establish notability. If the website/social network becomes genuinely notable, independent reliable sources meeting the necessary requirements will appear - but for now, they aren't in evidence
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WEB)

Comment: changed from k) clearly meets  and it went through , where it was vetted by an experienced editor prior to being moved to mainspace.  AfC editors are experienced, and do not approve articles that do not meet the minimum GNG standards.  There should be a presumption of notability for articles that have been through the AfC process
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AFC)

Comment: per reasons stated above. Also, Alexa argument is somewhat flawed - other than it being in the 'top 5k' (nothing special) - there's an assumption that being on Alexa, means there is |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: the number of hits on Google is not an indication of |notability - it would help to have some actual articles from |verifiable and |reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:V||WP:RS)