Deletion of Wipipedia (2 nomination)

Comment: There are two issues.  One is the notability of the site.  This was established in the last AfD, and nobody has provided any evidence that it has become less notable since.  The other is the overall good of Wikipedia.  Even if a case could be made for deleting the article, this would damage Wipipedia, and therefore Wikipedia which increasingly is getting content from Wipipedia rather than vice versa.  And if the zealous application of the letter of the law would damage Wikipedia, then it is our duty to apply  and keep the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: no evidence from  that this site meets . Yes, it's not policy, but there's a reason it's around, and it's not to be contravened by a bunch of -based votes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:WEB||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Firstly, eb is not policy.  It is inadmissible to delete something because of guidelines.  What policy does it fail to meet?  Secondly, this is not a vote; it is a debate.  The closing admin looked at the debate and decided not to delete, so the stuff about "a bunch of -based votes" is irrelevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: I believe that the previous AfD was completely unfair, and people were !voting keep because of the matter of the subject itself, while completely ignoring . This isn't notable, period
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: People keep citing , but this was rejected as policy.  Nobody can produce any policy reason for deleting this article, and therefore the clear decision taken recently to keep must stand
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: lacks sources. Notability is not subjective, etc. Guidelines and essays may not be written on stone tablets, but they certainly beat 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Those recommending to keep are correct in stating  is not a ''policy''.  However, it is still a ''guideline'', which does carry more weight in an AfD discussion than a generalized statement calling for its ignoring. To quote , the main notability guideline: ''It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.'' Likewise, ''One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.'' Look at other AfDs: a majority of the decision to keep and delete is based on such notability guidelines; while not policy, they provide an accepted barometer for whether a site is reasonably covered in third-party sources to be included herein. Any reasonable administrator will ignore, rightfully so, recommendations which simply state '' is not policy, so it doesn't matter'', as they come off as ''well, the guideline doesn't work for us, so let's give ourselves a free pass here''. Rather than simply stating that obvious truth, those recommending to keep are advised to find |reliable sources indicating if and how the notability guidelines are met
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:N||WP:WEB||WP:RS)

Comment: per Balzac and AnonMoos.  isn't policy, and notability guidelines and inclusion criteria are subjective. Those who disagree should attempt to make those guidelines into firm policy and see what the response would be. metaspheres
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)