Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DrunkDuck (2nd nomination)
On the one hand, this fails the two criteria under  that are more inclusive than . I can't find anything about it winning an award, and DrunkDuck is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The reference http://books.google.com/books?id=yYInVE6OLiQC&pg=PA219&dq=%22drunk+duck%22+comic&hl=en&ei=QKQwTobPEozAgQfF8rzmCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA here is also trivial. The GNG speaks of "non-trivial" coverage, enough to extract content without using original research, and six words is clearly trivial. However, the article about the purchase of DrunkDuck may be long enough to extract some actual juice from. It's also good that it discusses the site externally, as opposed to just talking about its content. Yet since Google Books only shows you a little bit of the periodical, there's no way of telling how trivial or non-trivial the coverage in that source is
— User:Guideline, 22:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:WEB||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)