Deletion of Conservapedia

Comment: no evidence of meeting , plentiful evidence of |conflict of interest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:COI)

Comment: That's nice, but how does it show that Conservapedia satisfies   and ?  Those are the only relevant criteria in this debate
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:WEB)

Comment: I entirely disagree with this accusation. This is '''''outrageous'''''... the Conservapedia entry does meet all of the criteria and this has already been discussed thoroughly in the Talk:Conservapedia|Conservapedia Talk Page. What about the Demopedia page? In your opinion does that also not meet  and ? I am expecting a prompt explanation for this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:V)

Comment: Split Infinity, Conservapedia does meet criterion 3 of . The site is very well known (it has contributors nationwide) and runs independent of its creators. Also, I demanded absolutely nothing. I '''''expected''''' my post to jolt the Wikipedians and no offense was intended
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: and ignore votes to keep for "liberal bias" reasons. Started three weeks ago, does not have any externally verifiable sources for the article. The ONLY reason to delete or keep this article is for policy reasons (), not reasons of "this is censorship!" or "Let's give them a fair chance". When/if the Conservapedia is written about by a reliable news source, there can be a Wikipedia article on it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: fails ,  (seven Ghits)and Conflict of interest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:V)

Comment: as failing the verifiability policy, since no sources are cited and the only external link is the site itself, and because no evidence is provided that the site is of any importance. If someone provides good source citations to a source meeting the |reliable source guidelines that show that there is widespread interest in this site, I'll change my vote
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per nom.  This has nothing to do with any sort of black-helicoptered, blue-helmeted "liberal bias" of WP and everything to do with the fact that this article does nothing whatsoever to establish notability -- it doesn't even make an attempt. There is one external link (to the site itself) and three reference links (again, all to the site itself).  Ordinarily I would hope to see an AfD nom like this result in an article being improved by adding in references that satisfy , but in this case there do not appear to be any (if a 7-hit Google search is any indicator
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: non-notable site.  Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Believe it or not, it's possible to want to delete someone's favorite site without any concern of censoring them. Just 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: as this site current fails  notability.  If at some point in the future this site increases its significance I have no doubt a wikipedia article will be written about it, with sourced notation of its impact and cultural relevance.  In response to those above arguing that it is larger than X site, or that it harms no one to keep it, or that "its of interest to some" should review |Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  I wish the creators of that site the best of luck in their endeavor, but until that endeavor takes off it cannot claim more importance than any other start up web project of its size
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Obviously http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-19,GGGL:en&q=conservapedia non-notable, fails  and  as well. VeniVidiVici, you're really bordering Wikipedia:Personal_attack|personal attacks there fyi. On Wikipedia, you don't demand
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:V)

Comment: fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)