Deletion of Bullshido.net (4th nomination)

Comment: fails to muster up the ''substantial'' coverage in |reliable sources that is required. The long history of COI edits, canvassing, s.p.a. involvement, etc., is sad but irrelevant to the simple continuing failure of this article to meet our standards. Arguments for retention boil down to  and exaggeration of the importance of the few mentions that have been found. As for examiner.com content: the less said, the better
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (:WP:RS||:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: Regarding notability:  I notice that practically every article in the list of social networking sites is sourced much less than the Bullshido.net article.  I know, , but let's not forget :  "The fact that it's 'only' a common outcome is not sufficient grounds to ignore the accumulated weight of Wikipedia's daily practice."  This isn't just a common outcome; it's the overwhelming standard.I notice that not one argument in favor of deletion has referenced a single precedent, much less a body of precedents.  They mostly consist of selective quotes from Wikipedia standards, or just blurting out the names of the standards.  That's not reasonable.  It's just wikilawyering, and bad wikilawyering at that.I hope the closing admin takes the actual weight of Wikipedia precedent into account, rather than the selective and incomplete invocations of isolated policies
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:AFDP)

Comment: mirroring my comment at the last AfD, Insignificant coverage in reliable sources + Significant coverage in unreliable sources ≠ |passing the general notability guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: for all the reasons set forth in Cunard's excellent nomination. When I Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination)|nominated this article for deletion a while back, I looked for non-trivial reliable sources, and they weren't there. Apparently they still aren't, and therefore this article violates  as well as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOTE)

Comment: per nom, , , , and OR.  &nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:NOR)

Comment: adequate coverage in  as appropriate for this niche subject (martial arts fora
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Shouldn't the AfD be updated to reflect the current references?  People appear to be voting based on Cunard's AfD and |may be assuming it is current and accurate.  It is neither.  If it's not to be updated, can it have some note to the effect that there are more references now under discussion?  I do not know what is customary in such a case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: I think it might be useful to quote the definition of "trivial coverage" from , in order to prevent ad-hoc definitions from being used:Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or Electronic commerce|online stores.Note what this ''doesn't'' say.  It doesn't require that the subject of the Wikipedia article be the primary subject of the source of the mention.  It doesn't require that the website be described in intimate detail.  It is designed to avoid references to the URL only, to brief general statements of the nature of the site, or to automatic aggregators.The ''Real Fighter'' article does not fall under this definition because it references specific activities undertaken by Bullshido that were relevant, indeed central, to the subject of the article.  The TV spot doesn't fall under it either.  Certainly the ''Kung Fu Magazine'' article exceeds this criterion.Any vote to delete which does not address these points directly and in detail, with reference to the details of Wikipedia policy rather than just blurbs, is not adding anything informative to the discussion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: The subject doesn't seem to have significant coverage by multiple reliable sources as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: In regards to , the nature of Bullshido.net one of consumer advocacy. As a result, it is a generator of content rather than an aggregator. It will be used as a source for other people's content rather than be written about itself. In addition to this,  states that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SOURCES)

Comment: The original stipulation that Bullshido.net fails the |No Original Research policy is unfounded. There is no information in the Bullshido.net article which pushes original research that isn't supported by external sources. Mentions of the Bannon case are supported by articles in the Rocky Mountain News and Charlotte Observer (http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5088/bannon.png Google News search screen capture) which are up for purchase in their archives. With the inclusion of the Bullshido.net research in independent 3rd party reliable sources, the argument that the Bullshido.net article fails  is moot
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:OR)

Comment: For all the reasons I have given above.  And now that I know what  refers I would ask that those leveling that charge at me do the obvious and check my edit history
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)