Deletion of Bullshido (2nd nomination)

Comment: Sources in the article do not establish that this is a notable neologism, and 95% of the article violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: to Bullshido.net and protect if necessary. No |reliable sources to substantiate article contents or demonstrate notable usage independent of bullshido.net
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SOURCES)

Comment: for lack of third party coverage regarding the term; fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: I don't think this lives up to . I see a lot of examples of things that would be described as "bullshido", but I don't see a lot of |reliable sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:RS)

Comment: Can the editors who want to keep the article provide reliable third-party sources to establish that this term satisfies |WP:V and #Reliable sources for neologisms|? Because currently the only article references that mention the term are |self-published sources (http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim/browse_thread/thread/883564e27c8ae0ce/e8ea4cfdf68e52ce?lnk=st&q=bullshido&rnum=12&hl=en#e8ea4cfdf68e52ce Usenet posts and a http://www.international-atemijujitsu.co.uk/bullshido.html self-published article on a website). Note that  states: "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SOURCES||WP:NEO||WP:SPS)