Deletion of Wikipediocracy

Comment: I think that http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kevin-morris/18/3a3/802 shows enough to demonstrate that, pace Jimbo, Kevin Morris is a proper journalist who has trained other proper journalists and that therefore his work for the Daily Dot counts as journalistic writing that counts as a reliable source. The issue is that Wikipediocracy is peripheral to most of the articles except for the ''Salon'' one where it is identified as crucial in the exposure of Young. My rystal Ball says that it will soon pass the notability criteria with flying colours as it continues to collaborate with journalists in the exposure of problems here. Of course, there I is a chance that Wikipediocracy might end up as the subject of coverage in its own right as it continues to provide exposés on WP/WM
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: The Salon article is a major source.  If there were two articles like that we wouldn't be having this deletion discussion.  On the other hand, the plethora of mentions and quotes from the site's moderators, especially Andreas Kolbe, in (yes it is one of the) reliable sources such as the Daily Dot are enough to tip me over on to the Keep side here.  The notability guideline we're working with asks us to consider whether "''The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.''"  Now, as with so many things, in order to understand the thesis we must consider the antithesis.  The guideline defines the opposite of non-trivial coverage: "'' trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.''"  That kind of coverage is not what we have here.  The Daily Dot articles do more than give "brief summaries," the rest of the clauses in the definition of "trivial coverage" aren't applicable, and so, with the Daily Dot articles and, most importantly, the salon.com article, I think the subject meets .  The question with this article is not so much "if" as "when," and it might as well be now.&mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: but delete the SPS claims made in the article.  It barely hits notability guidelines, though.  The claims about members etc. may certainly  be seen as "unduly self-serving" per Wikipedia RS standards,  and  must be strictly adhered to with regard to the Q essay/blogpost/article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Now, this is going to turn into an absolute shit-storm of censorship and whatever allegations, but Wikipediocracy does not appear to meet ,  or . Sure, it's notable to Wikipedians, and perhaps should be moved somewhere outside mainspace, but it still fails the guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WEB||WP:ORG)