Deletion of Wikinfo (6th nomination)

Comment: Per the fact that of the previous multiple AFDs over the course of the last 12 months alone, all but one were  keeps. Do we need to keep revisiting this every few months
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL)

Comment: This is indeed an important subject in the history of Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is not required to explain its own subculture, as much as the amazingly comprehensive Criticism of Wikipedia article might make you think otherwise. There is a wiki called MeatBall which covers the "meta" subjects for c2.com's WikiWiki. Similarly, this article might be useful to some wiki (Meta?) which exists to preserve Wikipedia's history and famous debates and so forth. However, as a subject in its own right Wikinfo fails . It is cited in scholarly articles only as an offshoot of Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Completely and utterly fails  by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.  I'm perplexed how this was kept so many times before
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Still fails  for lack of sufficient substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, as noted umpteen times above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I am particularly distressed at statements like "Fails ", that are so prevalent at AfD's these days. These statements fundamentally misconstrue the notability guidelines.  states, "''If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.''". This means that having nontrivial secondary source coverage guarantees notability, but the converse is not true - a lack of sources alone cannot override other arguments for notability. The same is true for . This article is notable for all the reasons above, and all the reasons in the previous 6 AfD's, which have not been sufficiently rebutted by those here voting "delete, fails 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WEB)

Comment: It's very simple.  requires multiple sources that are not trivial in amount of coverage. There are three independent sources of potentially non-trivial information cited at this article. One of them is behind a $10 subscription wall. The other two meet the  description of trivial amount: ''a brief summary of the nature of the content''. Every other argument amounts smoke blowing, contrary to AfD deletion policy as described at #Rough Consensus, and that guideline instructs closing admins to discount !votes contrary to Wikipedia standards, logic or the facts. Do we follow the notability guidelines or not? Do we have a single standard for both the articles/subjects we like and the one's we don't? Anyone voting differently here than at the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD should really think about explaining the difference, because there's a rotton stench of hypocrisy in the air (there ''can'' be reasons for voting differently -- for instance, there are more sources cited there than here -- but if you don't explain them, it looks like hypocrisy). The information can be moved into Wikipedia space, as Ned Scott suggested above (timestamp 04:44, 16 May), which is where non-notable subjects of interest to Wikipedians belong
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:DGFA)

Comment: This has gone through AfD five times previously, and the result has been keep four times out of five (with the fifth time being no consensus -- and that wasn't even the last nomination).  Note also that this appears to be part of a batch of nominations from the nominator, some of which seem |pointy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: some content into Internet encyclopedia project and redirect, also some content could be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia.  Although I am unable to find substantial coverage about Wikinfo in |reliable sources it is mentioned in coverage of wikipedia, wikis, and encyclopedia projects.  Not enough to write an article about but enough to at least be mentioned in the relevant articles
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Cited sources do not seem to denote this subject as adequately |notable. Would be happy to reconsider if additional references were added
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Fails  per various comments above (rather blatantly in fact). All sources are only a passing mention. Special:Contributions/78.86.18.55|78.86.18.55
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: fails , which is the guideline for such matters.  Ned Scott makes a good suggestion - as an atlernative to deletion, a '''move to project space''' would be agreeable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: fails , especially as actually applied in recent AfDs. The cites don't give independent, non-trivial coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: sources have not been brought to the table, so fails . Are we keeping this because it was started by a well-respected editor
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I note with some amusement that the 2nd nomination for deletion of Wikinfo's article here "seems to have been initiated by a vandal's sockpuppet" according to the person who nonetheless took up the baton on that deletion attempt, and the 4th nomination for deletion started with the bold statement "Note I have a bit of an anti-Wikinfo bias, because I have been vicously trolled and harassed by Fred Bauder, the admin of the site." Why this was allowed to get to a 6th deletion attempt is beyond me, given the outright bias presented in previous attempts, which often amounted to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: regardless of the good-faith or otherwise of the nomination, this website simply doesn't seem to satisfy . I count only one source that provides significant coverage. (Oh, and if it matters - I !voted exactly the same way on ED, I don't think either of them pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:WEB)