Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milk and cookies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Nomination withdrawn. People in discussion considered ranking enough to keep article. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milk and cookies[edit]

~~Non-notable site. Avi 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I stand corrected--Keep -- Avi 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what makes this site non-notable in your opinion. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to admit when I am mistaken, the ALexa rank is sufficent. -- Avi 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable website based on enormous Traffic Rank for milkandcookies.com: 7,110, Google hits: 900,000. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 19:35Z
Keep per Quarl Ruby 19:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Look more closely: Google yields many results, but only 34 unique ones, of which most are weblogs/stat sheets. --Kinu 20:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, but I trust the Alexa rank [1]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 20:25Z
Keep, that whole "unique hits" thing is a fallacy ... I only get about 300 of those for "microsoft.com" : ) . Adrian Lamo ·· 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quarl (not that I've ever heard of it). --kingboyk 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per traffic ranking. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.