Deletion of Bullshido.net (2nd nomination)

Comment: one of the most notable martial arts web sites, and has had a broader impact through fostering discussions on Ashida Kim, traditional martial arts training methods, etc. Once again, another nom. that feels like a  violation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The nominator is correct when s/he said that the references in the article are not nontrivial, independent |reliable sources that specifically discuss Bullshido.net. I have analyzed and listed the sources in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bullshido.net&oldid=314357604 as of this revision:1. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4494972,00.html This article from ''Rocky Mountain News'' mentions Bullshido.net in passing. The only time this website is referenced in this article is: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years. He dismisses Bannon's story as tortured fiction." This does gives no context about Bullshido.net, save that it is a website and a man named Browning has posted on it to debunk another man's story.2. http://realbullshido.blogspot.com/ http://realbullshido.blogspot.com/ &ndash; Blogspot is not a reliable source. It is a collection of blogs that can be written by anyone who signs up.3. http://www.themartialist.com/bullshidofaq.htm http://www.themartialist.com/bullshidofaq.htm is written by Phil Elmore, a man who has been attacked by Bullshido; Elmore writes "The Bullshido.com FAQ incorrectly describes Pax Baculum (and, I suppose, The Martialist and me) as somehow other than "up front about the evidence that exists today."" This is not an neutral article about Bullshido.net. Having read through the article, I have concluded that it is a attack on Bullshido.net. Furthermore and most importantly though, it has not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given.4. http://web.petabox.bibalex.org/web/20060504091905/http://www.ashidakim.com/shitlist.html http://web.petabox.bibalex.org/web/20060504091905/http://www.ashidakim.com/shitlist.html is the same as the fourth source. It was written by someone who has been attacked by Bullshido.net. It is a personal website by an individual called Ashida Kim (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)) has also not been given the editorial oversight and fact-checking that reliable sources (such as newspapers, magazines, and journals) are given.5. The reference that states that Bullshido.net is the "seventh in Alexia category on last view" points to http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category. This link does not lead to anything about Bullshido.net.6. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4495036,00.html This article from ''Rocky Mountain News'' does not even mention Bullshido.net.7. http://www.interpol.com/public/News/2006/Bannon20060131.asp This article from Interpol.com is the same as #6. It does not even mention Bullshido.net.8. http://ashidakim.com/10k.html http://ashidakim.com/10k.html is from the same source as #4. Not only is it an unreliable source, but it also doesn't even mention Bullshido.net.9. http://www.believermag.com/issues/200305/?read=interview_kim This article from ''The Believer (magazine)'' does not even mention Bullshido.net.10. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=28Ashida http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=28Ashida &ndash; a link from Bullshido.net cannnot be a neutral, independent reliable source about itself.11. http://www.bullshido.org/Ashida_Kim http://www.bullshido.org/Ashida_Kim &ndash; this is the same as #8.12. http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=160 http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=160 &ndash; this is the same as #8.13. http://dojopress.com/catalogms2.html http://dojopress.com/catalogms2.html &ndash; This unreliable source is a catalogue for selling memberships. Even if it were reliable, it would not be a sufficient source because it doesn't mention Bullshido.net.I have done much research about this website and have been unable to find any sufficient reliable sources about it. My searches included trawling through several pages of Google results, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Yahoo!. If this site were truly notable as the above "keep" voters suggest, there should be sufficient sources about it. However, I have been unable to find any.I am opposed to the merge suggested above by {{user|the wub}}. There are absolutely no reliable sources that discuss Bullshido.net. Even the passing mentions from reliable sources (see #1) do not provide enough context to justify a stub.I am also opposed to a redirect to David "Race" Bannon. A member of Bullshido.net may have posted information about Bannon, but that does not guarantee that the website should be mentioned in Bannon's article. Having http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bannon+bullshido.net&start=10&sa=N searched through results (using the search term "Banno bullshido.net"), I have been unable to locate any |reliable sources that indicate that Bullshido.net played major role in debunking Bannon's claims. The best source about Bullshido.net and Banno that I could find was http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4494972,00.html this article from ''Rocky Mountain News''. The article states: "This week, Browning, 38, posted on the Web site Bullshido.net an exhaustive dissection of Bannon's published claims, which he has investigated over the past two years." This passing mention that provides little context does not justify a redirect or a merge.The above "keep" votes state that "Bullshido is quite a notable organization within the martial arts community" and "one of the most notable martial arts web sites", but I have been unable to uncover anything to substantiate their claims
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS)