Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (2nd nomination)
Interesting to see that several keep votes are once again violating  and/or , and "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." hasn't been met - there is not significant coverage of Wikipediocracy itself anywhere. Even the Salon source is mostly about Wikipedia's failings, and not about Wikipediocracy's "success" - lacking in any real substance for Wikipediocracy, and any notability it gives to WC actually fails , based on the fact that Andreas Kolbe is a WC editor, and has name dropped it wherever they can. He mentions a thread there, he mentions how they approached him and helped him, and that's pretty much it. It could easily just be an advert for the "good" they do
— User:Lukeno94, 13:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:CRYSTAL||WP:TOOSOON||WP:INHERIT (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)