Deletion of GetWiki (2nd nomination)

Comment: it may be "something", but is it something ''notable''?  Is there non-trivial independent coverage by reliable sources?  Or is this just something that deserves ''at most'' a minor footnote in the articles about MediaWiki and Wikinfo?  Frankly, I think this is starting to run afoul of .  Although I suppose it might be marginally better than Elephant (wikipedia article) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant (wikipedia article)|AfD).  (Or not.  The Elephant article was better written and better researched than this one, IMO
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:ASR)

Comment: or ''if you must'', '''Merge and redirect''', frankly, having reviewed both the prev. AfD and the deletion review, even a merge smells like ''rampant'' |systemic bias about a subject that could really only be considered to notable by Wikipedians, but whatcha gonna do?  (As for Wikinfo, I've never heard of it, not that that's ''really'' relevant, but I think it says something about how much insiders assume importance about Wikimedia-related topics when, I suspect, much of the world has never heard of Wikimedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)