Request for reconsideration:  Deletion of Bullshido.net entry 

Requesting you re-examine the arguments in [], as per WP:DRV.

Your summary of my argument is factually false.  My argument was that the addition of four [more [reliable sources should carry weight.  The statement that the Real Fighter article was not neutral based upon some colorful language suggests your inexperience with publications about mixed martial arts.  Also, you gave us no time whatever to contact Sean Treanor and learn more from him; in any case, an article hosted on Stanford's Graduate Program in Journalism webpage, and not on a student's personal website within stanford.edu, could hardly have failed to undergo peer review or professorial supervision.

Furthermore, regarding the Real Fighter article, , the President of the American Sambo Association, took time out of his day to inform the discussion about how the article got produced:

My name is Stephen Koepfer and I wrote the original Bullshido article/investigation on Geraci. I wanted to share my account regarding how the RF acticle came into being, since my name has come up here. Sacha Feinman, a noted journalist http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sacha-feinman/17/400/976 contacted me about writing an article about Geraci. He was, as any good journalist would be, concerned with not simply regurgitating our investigation. However, reading my article, he felt it was well written, ivestigated, etc. He felt it would be a good springboard for further investigation. So, I provided all my sources to Feinman. He vetted the entire Bullshido piece, found it to be verifiable, and continued to investigate the case in further directions which Bullshido had not covered. As Feinman noted himself it was the Bullshido article which formed the basis for his own further investigation. Feinman and I did not collaborate on his article, other than my making introductions to sources and the subject, Geraci. Feinman was not paid by Bullshido, nor is he even a member of the site. He came to us because of our notability. I fail to see how the RF article, regardless of how much or little it sepcifically mentions Bullshido in print, could not be considered a notable reference for Bullshido. Our ivnestigation served as the springboard for his, he came to us because of our notability, he personally stated this as such, and the subject of the investigation itself (Geraci) is quoted in the RF article as saying the Bullshido investigation was accurate.

This addresses both the neutrality and the reliability issues, and you didn't mention it in your summary. Nor did you mention Carol Kaur's well-reasoned argument, which contained novel points to which no one had a reasonable answer.

The only policies on which you seemed to be amenable to a flexible reading were those involving the definition of consensus.  If Bullshido's similarity to an epithet is no grounds for considering its lack of coverage in a different light, neither are the repeated calls for deletion a basis on which to go with an impossibly loose definition of consensus.

I respectfully submit that your summary of consensus was factually wrong on several points, and ask you to reconsider.