Deletion of Wikipediocracy (2nd nomination)

Comment: Silver seren makes a good case that this is essentially a case of ing - using trivial mentions to pad out the article. We wouldn't allow that for other articles, so I don't see why we should allow that for this one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: I suspect I may be one of the editors Silver seren speaks of when they talk of re-evaluating the sources, as I have been arguing against this article's appearance as a DYK due to questionable notability.  In short, I agree completely with the analysis of the references, and despite searching, have found no indication of the existence of a single source that is independent of Wikipediocracy and offers significant coverage of the site. The time may well come when such coverage does exist, and that will be the time to consider creating this article (and potential DYK).  However, due to the present lack of coverage, this article is actually a , where the real purpose is to promote criticism of Wikipedia itself.  Criticism of Wikipedia|That article already exists, and lacking the above required non-trivial coverage of Wikipediocracy, there is no need for a duplicate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: The Salon article is a major source.  If there were two articles like that we wouldn't be having this deletion discussion.  On the other hand, the plethora of mentions and quotes from the site's moderators, especially Andreas Kolbe, in (yes it is one of the) reliable sources such as the Daily Dot are enough to tip me over on to the Keep side here.  The notability guideline we're working with asks us to consider whether "''The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.''"  Now, as with so many things, in order to understand the thesis we must consider the antithesis.  The guideline defines the opposite of non-trivial coverage: "'' trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.''"  That kind of coverage is not what we have here.  The Daily Dot articles do more than give "brief summaries," the rest of the clauses in the definition of "trivial coverage" aren't applicable.  If the coverage is not trivial coverage as defined in the notability guideline then it must be non-trivial coverage.  Thus, with the Daily Dot articles and, most importantly, the salon.com article, I think the subject meets .  Obviously the question with this article is not so much "if" as "when," and it might as well be now.&mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: If we are objective, it passes  by virtue of the sourcing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as I said last time. This article fails  and , as there is a very real lack of significant coverage. For whatever reason, last time people were swayed by lots of namedrops of the website, and by almost all Keep votes violating  and/or  quite nicely. I'm not a member of Wikipediocracy (obviously, given some of my past statements) and have no intention of joining
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WEB||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Article is |Interesting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Firstly, for what it's worth, I think Wikipediocracy is an excellent website that has done much to improve Wikipedia. However, I have to agree with Silverseren's nomination statement above, that under our policies it is not yet notable. It's had a lot of trivial mentions, but has yet to be the subject of significant coverage from anywhere; even the recent Salon article isn't really about it. Ultimately, therefore, it fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Clearly passes  (no need for me to repeat 28bytes, DGG, NYB, DB et al...). Whilst I appreciate that the nominator may feel the need to compensate for his original "keep" vote for some reason, the result is in little doubt, and I'm not entirely clear why we are indulging this. Dan T makes a good point - we need to develop some composure and detachment when discussing articles like this, which concern entities maybe critical of the encyclopedia. Not entirely clear why this 2nd out of process AFD was reopened, when it appears to be the NAC snow close of the 1st AFD which is being called into question, either. Still, we need our drama fill, so here we are
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Interesting to see that several keep votes are once again violating  and/or , and "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." hasn't been met - there is not significant coverage of Wikipediocracy itself anywhere. Even the Salon source is mostly about Wikipedia's failings, and not about Wikipediocracy's "success" - lacking in any real substance for Wikipediocracy, and any notability it gives to WC actually fails , based on the fact that Andreas Kolbe is a WC editor, and has name dropped it wherever they can. He mentions a thread there, he mentions how they approached him and helped him, and that's pretty much it. It could easily just be an advert for the "good" they do
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:TOOSOON||WP:INHERIT)

Comment: I think the article has sufficient sourcing to meet . It's also informative. Moreso than the bazillion stubs on this site. The ownership that Mathsci mentioned above ''is'' included in the article. Those asking to delete this article seem to either have unusually high standards or perhaps suffer from . They seem to want the article to say worse things about the topic in order to match their personal views. And failing to find independent sources for those views, they want the article deleted. But that's not what  says
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: The coverage in ''The Daily Dot'' and ''Salon.com'' is clearly more than trivial, and in total is significant. ''The Daily Dot'' describes the site as "known for digging up dirt". Surely "known for" is a synonym of "notable". This is not a web listing describing the site, it is a journalist. Other articles there detail some of the activities of the web site in far more detail than the line drawn for trivial coverage in 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)