Deletion of Deletionpedia (4th nomination)

Comment: Sources in the last AFD show that it meets the , and there's no other policy based reason (copyvio,  for deletion. Repeatedly putting the article up for AFD won't change that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: In any society with free speech, there is a dynamic between publishing with no censorship and publishing with censorship to protect people from libel, copyright violation, trade secret violation, being exposed to extreme forms of pornography and illegal acts, and other violations of their rights and the protection of minors. In other words, it is not always clear whether the right to free speech overrides other rights in specific cases. Since WP is an encyclopedia, used by anyone including children and people residing in countries opposing the idea of freedom of speech, I believe that WP should be self-censored with respect to protecting people's rights. However, I also believe that deleted articles and text deleted from articles should be accessible from a separate website (such as Deletionpedia) which proclaims itself as completely uncensored. This arrangement makes it possible for search engines and governments to block this separate site easily when desired, yet to provide a source for investigating rights violations and satisfying other valid inquiries. Clearly, a WP article about such a site is  and does not ''a priori'' compromise the self-censorship of WP
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)