Deletion of SkyscraperCity (4th nomination)

Comment: fails , which requires more than brief descriptions of web sites and the services that they provide, which is all that this is. There's the software that the forum runs on, the number of users it hosts, some descriptions of content which has been included, and an achivement by one user of the site which itself is not really notable, but no evidence of encyclopedic notability for the website itself, and very little detailed coverage in reliable sources. We're in 2016 now, that's fourteen years for this website to have made some kind of impact and be written about in reliable sources, but that coverage isn't there. It's just built up a fan base of interested users, and it provides some utility for architects so it gets name-dropped by architects from time to time, in the same way that I occasionally mention http://forum.quickbooksusers.com the QuickBooks users' forum, but volume of trivial mentions does not mean notability.  this so that this ''fourth'' time being deleted is the last
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:SALT)

Comment: oddly enough. I did a few Google Books searches regarding the site, and it's fair to say that  is not met, but nevertheless this website seems to have a fair bit of mindshare, because it seems that it has been referenced from hundreds of books by now. So it stands to reason that we should do what a book would do - keep a footnote quickly explaining the topic, in a sentence or so. In Wikipedia parlance, that would probably be a very short article that just states that it's a website with a forum, which is verifiable. This seems obvious to many readers, but isn't really. It would probably help a bit to elucidate to readers that it's not a reliable source in and of itself. Also, it shouldn't be marked as a stub, since the encyclopedic expansion potential is unclear
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)