Deletion of Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy

Comment: Many of those who have voted expressed their opinions above seem very familiar with many Wikipedia policies, such as , ,  etc.  I, however, very much urge everyone to step back, for a second, and just think about what this project is all about. It is about creating an '''encyclopedia of general knowledge'''.  Yes, we do have rules and guidelines about what should be included and what should not.  That does not mean that one shouldn't excercise one's common sense, at least once in a while.  And the common sense clearly tells that the internal workings of the project, including the internal controversies, are just not important enough (or not "encyclopedic enough", or not "notable enough", whichever phrase you prefer) to be inflicted onto our audience.  So, I urge everybody to consider: it this really notable?  Or do you think this is notable only because you yourself are involved with Wikipedia?  Would someone who is not involved with Wikipedia really think that this is a subject that is worthy to be included in a general-knowledge encyclopedia?  I believe that the answer to all these question is "no
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: as we generally |avoid self-reference.  Maybe there's room for a sentence or two on this in the Criticism of Wikipedia article, but not an article of its own.  As an aside, I wrote an essay of my own on this topic about a year ago (see
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ASR)

Comment: You are totally ignoring  in favor of your own subjective "I don't like it" standard. I suggest you go to  and try modifying it, if it is not in accord with your perceptions of what belongs in an encyclopedia. If an article about a cartoon episode, a garage band, or a cell phone had references as numerous and substantive from such reliable sources, it would also be a "Keep." The sources cited in the article and discussed above are in fact external to and independent of Wikipedia, and they make the case for notability. (edited 22:19
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: A redirect to a title including Wikipedia can be done when the AFD is complete, if it is kept. I agree it would be an improvement. The refs knock down  as a reason for deletion. The fact that "inclusionism versus deletionism in Wikipedia" was precisely the subject given substantial coverage in each of the references demolishes the deletion argument based on  and OR.  "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" and is not an excuse to sweep under the rug disputes and issues within the Wikipdeia community when they are discussed in major news media. Wikipedia is not censored to pretend that we are unanimous in all decisions about content. (edited 22:28
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SYNTH||WP:NOR||WP:ASR)

Comment: The conflict between inclusionists and deletionists on Wikipedia has received substantial coverage, properly referenced in the article, in USA Today, National Public Radio, The Telegraph, Canadian paper National Post and the Harvard Business School. This easily satisfies  and . This is not original research and it is not a metadiscussion among editors. The fact that somewheere on Wikipedia editors discuss something has no bearing on whether a referenced article about the subject is also appropriate.  This short article probably in the top 25% of Wikipedia articles in terms of having multiple independent and reliable references with substantial coverge. We needn't attempt to hide disputes within the Wikipedia comunity from public scrutiny, when they are widely covered in the world's newspapers and broadcast media. It clearly is not a candidate for merger to a "Criticisms of Wikipedia" article or section, since the references and the text do not single out either philosophy as deficient. This could be a section in the main article, so separately from this AFD there could be a merger proposal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: Sure there is real world context. Some of the news articles that talk about deletion debates, particularly of biographies, deal with the very notions of importance and notability, which are real world issues for the subjects (think BLP). For instance, 'http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/programs/2007/01/20/marked_for_deletion.html Even those that defended Susan's Wiki-worthiness were harsh: "Seems notable enough. At least as notable as any other second-tier author or journalist." Ouch.' You know how much effect Wikipedia has, and yet inexplicably can't see it being compatible with |ASR, which specifically allows for this type of article. A merge to Criticism of Wikipedia would be improper as it's not primarily a criticism, but an aspect of the community (read the sources). A merge to Wikipedia would produce |undue weight given the available info that's essential to the issue. I am in the process of improving the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ASR||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: but cut it down a good deal to resolve issues of wp:original research|original research. This has received significant news coverage and attention, so it is definitely |notable. If written properly, it can wp:avoid self-references|avoid self-references, so this should be a reason for cleanup rather than deletion. And in response to the nominator's reason for deletion, have you read 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CAPITALIZEDGIBBERISH)

Comment: sure its controversial here, but there are sufficent  to make sure its tied to the outside world. If we are unsure of its significance, then I think it should be noted that this debate on it is now almost longer than the article itself! Rgds
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: has independent, reliable sources which is the basic criterion for inclusion. For those who cite  and those uncomfortable about seeing an article about Wikipedia, see 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ASR||WP:WAWI)