Deletion of Bash.org

Comment: See  and . Notability is defined on Wikipedia as "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". You may not like this, but they are policy, and regardless of what you think Wikipedia should be, Wikipedia is very clear about what it is, and it disagrees with you. If it fails , it should not stay
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INTERESTING||WP:POINT||WP:N)

Comment: Re: : "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources."  So, if you see a mistake, fix it; just make sure you point out where others can go to verify your repair
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Sorry,  doesn't trump , and if someone disagrees it's not a good application of IAR.  If we start factoring in the subjective opinions of Wikipedians on whether something is notable or not, then we start getting in trouble.  Let's not go there. Coverage = notable.  No coverage = not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:N)

Comment: Agree about references, |OR, and most importantly notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per Explodicle and . It's definitely worthy of an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Look, I enjoy bash.org, but |Wikipedia's rules about notability are clear. If a subject is not covered in reliable printed sources (bash.org has not) or in reliable, '''non-trivial''' websites (bash.org has not), then Wikipedia should not have an article about it. The authors of arguments for keeping this article say that they like bash.org or that bash.org is a "popular" site. That you like the site is irrelevant--I like it, too, but that doesn't make it notable. As to the second point, it's not even that popular. See, e.g., http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=bash.org Alexa statistics. Moreover, popularity is not a part of the notability guidelines and is therefore irrelevant. Please read those guidelines before making irrelevant arguments. I think the case is clear here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: as abstaining  party - Previous discussion:  '''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bash.org|unanimous keep'''.  I know there was one more, but I have thus far been unable to find it (it was sometime in 2005 I believe).  I would like to again state that I believe this article has existed in a state of |cognative dissonance because of the unique nature of web phenomenon not existing in traditionally |reliable sources.  I would also suggest that the mere existance of so many people showing up to voice strong opposition to deletion (every time) is an indication that the site is indeed notable in the pure sense of the word.  If you could see how many instant messages and emails I get about bash.org, or saw the weblogs you'd think twice about calling it a "''mildly obscure website''".  I also urge you to reconsider basing your argument (in part) on Alexa rankings -- a site need not be a slashdot to be notable.  The major problem that I see is not with , but with .  There will likely '''never''' be a source that fully complies with  that will cover bash.org.  One of the major tasks I've always tried to undertake has been ensuring factual accuracy of the article, which has been massively difficult because of .  I think the arguments that "''it's not notable''" (a ''guideline'') have been obviously trumped by common sense (as the comments on this page show); I do see the problems with  (as a ''policy'') and can only promise that if NYT or NBC want to do an interview on bash.org I will fully comply
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:IAR||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:RS)