Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're either with us, or against us
In response to you saying "Thus, the topic is incredibly encyclopedic per our First pillar": The word "encyclopedic" has a static definition, meaning that what is and is not encyclopedic is immutable outside of the opinions of the editors here. Something is not granted "encyclopedicness points" by this so-called First Pillar of Wikipedia. This is related the concept set forth in The Emperor's New Clothes; if an article is a piece of crap and irrelevant, it's a piece of crap and irrelevant...no matter what a Wikipedia policy says. As it says in , "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I would expand on that to say this: I don't think there's anything wrong with any of the Wikipedia policies. If you think that a Wikipedia policy is saying something which conflicts with improving Wikipedia, then you're reading of the policy is incorrect. Not the policy. Either way, you can set your conscience (if you have one) free via the spirit of 
— User:Piercetheorganist, 20:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:IAR||WP:IAR (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules)