Deletion of Wipipedia (third nomination)

Comment: WP:WEB is not policy,  is. This is an article about a specialist encyclopeida. That the encyclopedia is (only) available on the Internet should be no disadvantage to it: were it to be publshed in printed form I am sure it would be bought, quoted, mis-used and argued about by many people, just as many such books covering BDSM or fetish are, just as are specialist encylcopedias. True, it would be nice to quote professional people's objective data on the web site (published in tried and tested media, of course) but let us be realistic about the subject matter and realise that just is not going to happen; it won't happen about the encyclopedia nor about much of the subject matter, some of which is covered in :Category:BDSM|this encylopedia. This does NOT make the topic meaningless, nor useless, nor inaccurate, nor even unverifiable to the greatest extent possible
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: how about ''this'' rationale for deletion; this article has '''zero''' |reliable sources which assert, or support |notability.  It patently fails the notability guidelines - and the fact that it has been previously kept, and yet ''still'' no sources have been added after months, indicates that it ''cannot'' be adequately sourced.  I would seriously like to see some rationale for why this article ''doesn't'' violate notability standards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:WEB)

Comment: WP:ILIKEIT or  aside, the issue at this AfD is the same as at previous ones-there are simply no reliable secondary sources to support anything in this article. Notability aside, , a core policy, is pretty clear on that situation-"If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And we can't keep around articles which inherently violate core policies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:V)

Comment: Meets the third criterion of  due to being mirrored on informedconsent.co.uk which is (I'm led to believe) the UK's best known site on the topic (it's certainly the top result of a http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=bdsm&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB UK-only google search for "BDSM", which must count for something
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: all its sources at the bottom appear to be blogs, wikis, the site itself, and other unreliable sources. It thus fails  and . It needs a major rewrite and sources at best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NPOV)

Comment: It still fails . From what I remember, it was argued last time around that the content is worth keeping due to being hosted on the "London Fetish Scene" website. That's unpersuasive - if we (still!) don't have any reliable, substantial, independent sources about Wipipedia itself, we simply don't have anything to base an article on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Relevant policies and guidelines: , , 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:WEB||WP:RS)

Comment: per  -- fails our inclusion criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)