Deletion of Wikitruth (2nd nomination)

Comment: Hands up: who thinks http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50960 this is a |reliable source
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Mentioned in a number of mainstream publications, thorn in Wikipedia's side, amply meets , no reason given for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: essentially navel-gazing.  Oh look, wikipedia is important enough that there's a website devoted to picayune errors and issues!!! Wikipedia is |not, above all, about Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per comments as above, meets  guidelines for inclusion.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&amp;section=new Yamaguchi先生 23:13, 9 October 2006
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: this part of the collective Wikipedian vanity series of articles which will never be . The argument to keep this, and similar articles, appears to be "Wikitruth/Daniel Brandt/whatever criticised Wikipedia and Andrew Orlowski/Slashdot/whatever picked it up". Who cares ? Apparently lots of Wikipedia editors do, perhaps because it makes them feel important (cf. ).  more or less explains why this sort of article is a Bad Thing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:CVU||WP:AUTO)

Comment: This article passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Notability under  more than satisfied by Guardian/Register articles. That said, it's an attack site, not serious criticism of Wikipedia. The article should characterize Wikitruth's content accurately
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)