Deletion of Deletionpedia

Comment: I agree that this is an apropo use of .  The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a free online encyclopedia.  The encyclopedia is greatly improved by the fact that the revision history is available and all content contributed to an article is present in some form.  It allows future editors to build on the work of previous editors, even when the contributions in past edits were not yet acceptable for front-end content.  Furthermore, editors are accountable for the changes they make.  This accountability and preservation of content is not present with deleted articles.  Deletionpedia could fill this need, or it could become a catalyst for change, but it can't do either without building a strong link with Wikipedia.  This article is the first step in that direction.  The consensus appears to be that it improves the wiki.--Special:Contributions/128.6.210.119|128.6.210.119
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Multiple reliable sources. Meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Meets  requirements of two non-trivial independent sources. There is no requirement for being "major
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: the articles cited in this article seem to establish notability. Give  a go on this before blitzing it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (WP:RESCUE)

Comment: Meets , is informative and is worthy of notice. Moreover, it is past being a Start or Stub article. It is also mentioned in international news such as the dutch article previously mentioned and in the http://www.theinquirer.de/2008/09/18/deletionpedia-geloschte-wikipedia-artikel-zum-nachschlagen.html German Press
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: It may fail  but has garnered enough media coverage to make it notable (partially thanks to the irony of this deletion nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Notable web site. I took the time to read  and it doesn't fail the criteria as far as I can tell. I won't defend it because the Nominator has not made a sufficient case, rather rhetoric without substance behind the nomination. You can't just say a site is non-notable and fails  without actually explaining how and why
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: as much as |I don't like it, it meets the  for having several |reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: rhetorical): It was mentioned by ''The Wall Street Journal'' too;  says "multiple non-trivial published works"; does "multiple" mean >1? :-)  Special:Contributions/67.101.5.132|67.101.5.132
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)