Deletion of Wikinfo (2nd nomination)

Comment: I've found any AfD concerning a Wikipedia fork or other Wikimedia project inherently gets a lot "Of course it's notable, I've heard of it!" votes, which seem obviously biased, and this site is another one that simply does not seem to meet . I encourage people to remember that we don't keep articles simply because we can relate to the subject, but because they meet established and agreed upon inclusion guidelines. Please present evidence that Wikinfo has recieved meaningful third party coverage. Blurbs and mentions here and there really do not an article make, and all I've found in searching 2 good academic search engines are a small number of blurbs that say no more than "Wikinfo is a fork of WP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per Sam Blanning. No independent refs makes this  material masquerading as encyclopedic content. Recreate iff  become available
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:ADS||WP:RS)

Comment: There are no reliable sources for this.  Just because you've heard of something doesn't mean it meets the requirements for verifiability and reliable sources.  Until someone provides an outside source, I don't see how this can be kept (no, blogs and trivial links are ''not'' |reliable sources).  Never before have I seen such a large number of editors have no regard for verifiability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The consensus of the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikinfo|first AfD discussion was: failure to fulfill  is not relevant, as this article is not primarily about a website but about an important fork of an important project. This has not changed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)