Deletion of Jesus Freak Hideout (4th nomination)

Comment: This publication is used by other |reliable sources, such as ''Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music'' right https://books.google.com/books?id=xwI5AQAAIAAJ&q=%22Jesus+Freak+Hideout%22+-jesusfreakhideout.com&dq=%22Jesus+Freak+Hideout%22+-jesusfreakhideout.com&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN3oCavdbKAhWE4yYKHYlHByoQ6AEIOjAF in this search. It is also mentioned in ''Contemporary Musicians'' right https://books.google.com/books?id=xBk6AQAAIAAJ&q=%22Jesus+Freak+Hideout%22+-jesusfreakhideout.com&dq=%22Jesus+Freak+Hideout%22+-jesusfreakhideout.com&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw8ICsvtbKAhWI0iYKHfk4AkEQ6AEINjAE in this search. These two instances are enough for me to consider this publication a |notable website, for inclusion as part of this ever growing encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: per previous discussions. |assuming good faith on the sources having once existed is fundamental to this encyclopedia. It's not necessary to be mean. Then contacting only the two people who previously nominated it for deletion, without contacting any supporters (besides me who originally started it), is considered . The website is likely the most well-referenced standard in the American Contemporary Christian Music genre scene. Using a google search, I see pages and pages of websites from major notable artists that are referencing JFH's reviews http://www.breathecast.com/articles/building-429s-unashamed-out-now-named-best-album-video-31529/ http://www.thirdday.com/news?n_id=320. Having the article deleted will only service to create 500 red links on articles https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=1000&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Fjesusfreakhideout.com
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:CANVASSING)

Comment: nbsp; Previously AfDed for WP:WEB and WP:CORP, no notability sub-guideline is identified here.&nbsp; As for the claim, "Article requires non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent...sources", no, notability is not a content guideline, see #Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article.&nbsp; Since deadlinks are good as WP:RS references, just harder to locate, the nominator confirms that he/she has not read some of the good-faith sources already provided for this topic.&nbsp; Moving on, WP:BEFORE B4, B5, and B6 are issues.&nbsp; B4 has been dismissed with an argument whose source says, "If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend 'Keep'..., arguing that because the article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This is a good argument in some circumstances..."&nbsp; B5 shows a large number of links being proposed for turning red, this number was reported in a previous AfD, and turning this many links red would seem to be a high-priority consideration for the nomination.&nbsp; I'm not convinced that 1800 edits to the encyclopedia are possible linking to a topic that has failed to attract the attention of the world at large over a period of time ( nutshell).&nbsp; As for B6, there are three foreign language websites not reviewed in the nomination.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)