Deletion of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (3rd nomination)

Comment: per , upon consideration of the nominator's analysis of the sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I really, really would like to see an article on this. This site is quite well known, and very unique. And I'm sure many Wikipedians are fans of this site. Additionally, there are a lot of references to this site online, but nearly all of them are passing references in blogs and forums. Those factors are why it was kept in the past, despite many delete votes. Many believed this article could be properly sourced. However, unfortunately, there just isn't enough discussion amongst third party sources at this time to warrant an article. Especially when one considers . I did some quick searches and couldn't find anything useful. Having this articles means breaching  and Wikipedia policy. That said, if someone cares enough about this article, they should move it to their userspace and try working on it to see if, somehow, it can be improved. Or wait until it can. Then, if, and only if, more third-party references are added, the article can go through . I would suggest adding more information on the history of the website, if possible, and its popularity, as shown through references (preferably news references) and site hits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:N||WP:UNDELETE)

Comment: Good secondary source coverage, satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: I have just noticed that the second AfD debate ended in KEEP in January 2010, less than a year ago. '''Notability is not temporary.''' If people feel a mistake was made, that decision could have been appealed to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Bringing it back here constitutes a disruptive manifestation of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)