Deletion of Ignore all rules (2nd nomination)

Comment: for reasons cited above and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ignore_all_rules first nomination.  To be sure there are legal and equitable underpinnings, which can and should be researched more.  But that is a content dispute,, and no reason to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: It's certainly possible to find more external sources about this.  For example, in the ''New York Review of Books'', writer Nicholson Baker covered this as one of ''https://msu.edu/~jmonberg/415/Schedule_files/Baker%20on%20Charms%20of%20Wikipedia.pdf The Charms of Wikipedia'', explaining that this was "''the first Wikipedian rule''".  Also, there is lots of :category:Anarchist_theory|anarchist theory which may cover this as a general principle under some other heading.  Anyway, the nomination invokes the rule  but that's just a |guideline which explicitly cites the policy itself: "'' and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|occasional exceptions may apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GUIDELINE)

Comment: I've been accused of "a blatant violation of efore. This is most certainly not the case and I invite the editor who made the accusation to withdraw it. Let's go through the sources to see if they meet as much muster as the keep !voters say they do
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)

Comment: to . Self-referential, doesn't need a standalone article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: per . This is a relevant topic and it is distinct, and more generally, :category:Anarchist_theory|anarchist theory. The article is referenced well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)