Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch (5th nomination)
My disagreement with these arguments that stress the word ''significant'' is that multiple independent sources cite WW as an example of reasons to question Wikipedia's reliability as a research source. Three found quickly on Google Scholar are: http://nseus.org/bgpaper1.pdf, a research paper; http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en&lr=&vid=USPATAPP11781693&id=roinAAAAEBAJ&oi=fnd&dq=%22Wikipedia+Watch%22&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q=%22Wikipedia%20Watch%22&f=false, a patent application and http://ethesys.lib.fcu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search/getfile?URN=etd-0630108-133810&filename=etd-0630108-133810.pdf, a Feng Chia University student thesis, all formally describing WW as an important source of information regarding challenges to Wikipedia reliability. This leads me to conclude that, as Wikipedia ranks somewhere in the bottom half of the top ten of internet traffic statistics worldwide on several lists, and its use as a research tool is questioned, WW will be referenced in historical discussions of Wikipedia's development in the course of years and decades to come. The individual citations in the article do not tell the complete story. They can be dissected and have their significance questioned, however  also mentions "historical significance" for which the site's notability can be secured. I was hesitant to point out the use of  terms beginning with "largely" in the nomination and the overall  tone of the nomination, however these weaknesses in the nomination place an onus on those who support deletion to provide irrefutable evidence that the site is not notable. This has not been done, and therefor the article ''does not'' "have to go" based on 
— User:Sswonk, 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:WEB||WP:WEASEL||WP:IDL||WP:WEB (Wikipedia:Notability)