Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (2nd nomination)
The Salon article is a major source.  If there were two articles like that we wouldn't be having this deletion discussion.  On the other hand, the plethora of mentions and quotes from the site's moderators, especially Andreas Kolbe, in (yes it is one of the) reliable sources such as the Daily Dot are enough to tip me over on to the Keep side here.  The notability guideline we're working with asks us to consider whether "''The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.''"  Now, as with so many things, in order to understand the thesis we must consider the antithesis.  The guideline defines the opposite of non-trivial coverage: "'' trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.''"  That kind of coverage is not what we have here.  The Daily Dot articles do more than give "brief summaries," the rest of the clauses in the definition of "trivial coverage" aren't applicable.  If the coverage is not trivial coverage as defined in the notability guideline then it must be non-trivial coverage.  Thus, with the Daily Dot articles and, most importantly, the salon.com article, I think the subject meets .  Obviously the question with this article is not so much "if" as "when," and it might as well be now.&mdash
— User:Alf, 12:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:WEB (Wikipedia:Notability)