Deletion of Battlestar Wiki (3rd nomination)

Comment: no real assertion of notability.  A bare mention on one independent site, a whole bunch of citations to blogs and the battlestar wiki itself, a conference presentation (?) privately published and apparently no mention in any actual journal or book of conference proceedings, and a broken (?) link to the AOL external site.  That last one, were it working, might let it pass , depending on its contents.  If it is working, and the only mention is the one sentence, which lists numerous other sites, then I withdraw my previous tentative support.  Aside from the one possibly viable source, I see no assertion of independent interest in reliable sources.  After 3 deletions, I'd say salt the earth; recreation can occur on a |sub-page and be moved after an admin clears it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SP)

Comment: doesn't seem to meet  notability criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: fails . This article has been deleted twice at AFD already, and I don't think its claim to notability has become any better since then
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Joe, you might want to look into ; other pages are irrelevant, but you are welcome to review  and nominate the other page for deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX||WP:AFD)

Comment: I'm aware of  and all the other  that people refer to (and acronyms of its nature should really be avoided, since it's very much "newspeakian"). But anyway, were I to nominate those other two articles for deletion, I would more than likely be labeled as a "disruptor" of Wikipedia for trying to |prove a point and some other worthless string of acronyms. Having been an active administrator on Wikipedia, I am fully aware of all the double standards employed by the cliques (glorified "World of Warcraft" clans, really, and that's sad) vying for domination of their POV on Wikipedia, which really goes against the spirit of |"neutral" point of view. My point in bringing up those two articles is really to point out the fact that Wikipedia's rules are not universally or consistently applied as they absolutely need to be... But the two articles I bring up -- primarily Memory-Alpha -- can be deleted under the same reasoning as explained in this very "AFD". Now, the question remains, do I want to run Memory-Alpha through AFD? No. Because I believe the article deserves to exist on Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX||WP:ACRONYMS||WP:POINT||WP:NPOV)