Deletion of Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Comment: This article is relevant for Wikipedia to explain the different contexts of it. I'm going to , to not allow the rules of Wikipedia to cut it's own heel. It's relevant enough
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: I don't think anyone who has become involved this discussion is seriously contemplating the complete removal of the information from this site. The question is rather: what would the best place for this material? In it's own article? Merged into another article? In the Wikipedia namespace? Maybe a merge and redirect is the best option, but '''merge and redirect do not require an AFD.''' At the very most one would start a discussion on the relevant talk page&mdash;and possibly not even that. Suggesting that the article should be merged or moved is not , but ''creating the AFD in the first place'' looks very much like it. Why go through this whole process&mdash;and face all this argument, dissent and controversy&mdash;if you don't have to? It only makes sense if the real motive ''is'' to generate controversy and dissent. I stand by my comment, and my vote. This AFD should be disposed of, and the discussion taken to the article's talk page, where it belongs
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Looks far too much like 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: It is a very notable website and meets  comprehensively. It is in bad taste to leave this article in AfD. --|S
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:EA)

Comment: Meta is a notable entity, and the nom's comments look like  to me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: to WikiMedia Foundation. This is obviously of great interest to Wikipedians, but I've yet to see evidence that this actually meets ... there doesn't seem to be much or any external interest in Meta. A few passing mentions here and there, but nothing really meaningful. Could only dig up one mention at all in the past few months http://www.mmail.com.my/Current_News/mm/Cache/CFeature/20060605113157/Article/index_html, and it was just a passing mention
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Its supposed Alexa ranking was cited, but that raking was misleading, as Alexa gives the same exact rank to a subdomain as it gives to the main domain.  So meta.wikimedia.org http://alexa.com/search?q=meta.wikimedia.org gets the same exact rank as wikimedia.org http://alexa.com/search?q=wikimedia.org.  Also, User:Zoz cited some other Wiki-Media project website articles, but if some of those are just original research and self-reference, then I think they should be deleted too.  I think there's a very strong case for keeping the main Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia is a major website which has recieved extensive media coverage and can thus be written citing those sources.  The same goes for any other Wikimedia website where notable sources have written about it which can be cited.  Someone said that it should be kept on the basis of |"Ignore All Rules," but I don't see how violating self-reference, original research, and NPOV - to include an article about a site which hasn't been shown to be encyclopedic - benefits Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)