Deletion of Wikinfo (4th nomination)

Comment: Definitely a notable website, passes . The nominator's statement of bias seems a bit dubious
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Disregarding the apparently bad-faith nom and ignoring the silly vendetta from Encyclopedia Dramatica users, there really is no reliable secondary sources demonstrating |notability or allowing |verifiability. As others have mentioned, the two or three secondary sources are just passing mentions in the context that it was forked from Wikipedia. Google News Archives only returns one result (one of the above passing mentions cited), LexisNexis returns none. The above sources verify enough information to maybe merit a short mention in History of Wikipedia|History or Criticism of Wikipedia about how Wikinfo forked from Wikipedia and why, but not enough for a full verifiable article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: For christ's sake, do people just love giving Wikitruth wiki-bashing fodder or do they actually think this article doesn't meet otability? Because it certainly does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: It may someday become historically significant, (see previous AfD arguments), but it still lacks sources. Its very easy to look through the two pages of google results, and see that there's not much about it out there. Any sources listed on the References section do little more than mentioning Wikinfo. Miserably fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)