Deletion of The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (2nd nomination)

Comment: Fails the |primary inclusion criterion for web-sites: the site has not been the subject of multiple |reliable secondary sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:RS)

Comment: Now that I can actualy take a look at this one I stand by my opinion that it should likely have just remained deleted.  Claims of being one of the "top blogs" ''might'' qualify for inclusion, but this claim is unsourced and either way a quick web search doesn't seem to imply that it can pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per nom, fails , .  Like CH, I see an Alexa rank of #236,935, and whatever the methodology that proclaimed this in the top fifty of Web blogs, I'm unconvinced.  If this is as influential a blog as all of that, I'd like to see some reliable, published, independent sources, please
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT||WP:WEB)

Comment: No matter the topic or the supposed controversy, this blog doesn't actually appear to meet . I've gone through that list and it's not on it, although ''another'' politically similar blog is (and doesn't have an article and perhaps should, since ''that'' blog may pass ). I don't see that it's won any recognized unrelated third-party awards (as have, for instance, Go Fug Yourself or Regret The Error, two non-political blogs). I'm not seeing where it's being written about by non-trivial sources (as the above have been
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: This blog is not like MySpace, which is a actually a notable website. Doesn't seem to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)