Deletion of Wikipedia Review (3rd nomination)

Comment: Appears to satisfy . —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia The Guardian, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/page2.html The Register, and the http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/papers/2008-AAAI/2008-AAAI-AugSocialCognition.pdf Palo Alto Research Center satisfy thr threshold of . All in all, especially considering that the nominator created 1 article last June, then nothing til a few middling edits today before the nomination, a very ill-advised, bad-faith nomination.  |Quackity-quack
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:DUCK)

Comment: This view seems inconsistent with the article long having used as references six links to earlier versions of the same WR site. When the reference cited in the article as the official URL, www.wikipediareview.com, is clicked, it displays a message "NOTICE:This domain name expired on 1/16/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion. WELCOME TO: wikipediareview.com." That is presently cited as reference number 6. Don't the old refs to WR then also fail  and ? How can you pick and choose which versions of the WR site are reliable sources and which are O.R
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: Topic passes , significant coverage in reliable news sources: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/page2.html, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)