Deletion of Notability in Wikipedia

Comment: as Wkipedia's ever-changing definition of  is covered (usually disparagingly) in numerous reliable sources. It meets wiki's own inclusion guidelines as an article, and lends itself brilliantly to explaining the ins and outs and controversies of  to the unschooled, thus informing and educating the reader. It is itself not a guideline or policy, but simply an article covering a guideline that is itself often in the press. '''POINT''': The article '''about''' Notability is NOT intended so much for Wikipedians (we have the policies and guidelines themselves), but is rather for the uninitiated to increase their understanding of the subject. Nice article... and kudos to all who have worked to improve it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: The only information that features in this article and wouldn't appear on  is the "controversy" section which only serves as a way for people who are upset at missing the inclusion criteria to complain about it. If people want to know about Wikipedia's notability policy, it's there for them to read. Perhaps a redirect here would help direct people's curiosity
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The worst kind of |self reference and navel gazing. This article is ridiculously recursive. What is notable is not that we have a notability policy, but that it has been debated publicly by the press and other sources. Since, according to the third party source coverage, it's ''the debate'' and ''not'' the concept itself that is notable, this should all be covered in History of Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:SELF)

Comment: A pretty well-referenced article. Self-references are things like "see the Wikipedia article on..." or "edit this page" or "this website". This is an encyclopedia article, perfectly acceptable per  as long as it meets the same criteria as other articles, which I think that this does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WAWI)

Comment: per |IAR
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: The Talk:Notability_in_Wikipedia|talk page lists 10 RS that cover this topic.  That is more than suffient for any article.  Also,  is about not mentioning Wikipedia in articles ''unrelated'' to Wikipedia and not using it as source.  It does not mean articles can't be written ''about'' Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:SELFREF)

Comment: to Wikipedia or the inclusionism/deletionism article (which the controversy section is redundant to) per Doc and Friday. I find much of the article be rather -y, especially the lead section. The sentence "''Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia to openly discuss criteria for inclusion.''" is misleading. Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia to discuss anything openly; inclusion criteria are not special here. I don't see why the focus of this article is on notability when most of the content and many of the sources could easily apply to Wikipedia as a whole, which we already have an article on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: The subject is sourced with a suitable amount of references.  There could be many more added in my opinion.  Besides the general notability of this subject, I believe that it's very important that this article be well maintained as I believe many sources outside of Wikipedia will find this page.  It also important that this page not simply reflect the  as there would be no reason for it.  I believe that it shouldn't just explain the rules of notability because one article never could.  It should give a simple definition (which it does) and then cover the controversy covered by outside sources on the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The appropriate place to discuss what wikipedia means by notability is .  I see this as potentially confusing a great many new editors who think that this article is the guideline they should be looking for, and we run the risk of having this page and the notability guideline itself be out of sync
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: and improve. I know we have The Economist editorial stance and there may be others. The article has only just been born and there is plenty of academic work on Wikipedia, probably on notability too. I can't believe that I'm having to argue that Wikipedia's concept of notability is notable! This is 2009, not 2001; we just killed Encarta... And may I say that it's uncharitable at best to argue for deletion on grounds that it's not notable (when there are sources showing some notability, and the article is less than 24 hours old) and on grounds that better sources aren't findable (when there is plenty of academic work on Wikipedia which covers it I'm sure. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Wikipedia's concept of "notability" is in itself a |notable topic for an encyclopedia article, as demonstrated by the multiple, secondary |reliable sources in the article. The self-referencing argument doesn't stand. Read Wikipedia:WAWI#Writing about Wikipedia itself, and note that articles about Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia, are acceptable, and only have to meet our notability/encyclopedicness guidelines for inclusion.  The argument that ''we don't have articles on ""reporting standards for CBS News" or "editorial inclusion policies of the Wall Street Journal""'' is an  argument and can be discarded as such, or can be countered with the fact that we ''do'' have articles on the editorial policies of certain publications, such as The Economist editorial stance.  The nominator needs a trout slap and a reminder of , since if there isn't enough material here for a stand-alone article, it should be merged and redirected to Wikipedia. —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:BEFORE)