Deletion of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination)

Comment: ndash; I looked through the sources, and none of them establish notablity. They're not reliable sources, and the few that are reliable (such as from Google Books) are only a swift and passing mention. Not even close to meeting the 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is rediculous. I closed this quite awhile ago, and another non admin opened it. I dont have a problem with a healthy debate, don't get me wrong here, but when it comes to someone trying to make a |Point someone needs to draw the line. Sources have been established, citations have been made, references added, but those who wish to destroy the article |don't like them. I would like to closing admin to also take a look at the attempted deletion history of the individuals who have asked for prior articles to be deleted. We are an encyclopedia, articles should be KEPT, NOT DELETED. Whomever wrote  and added something along the lines of "why don't you try to FIX an article instead?" was a fucking genius
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:IDONTLIKE||WP:DELETE)

Comment: because of newly added sources. and '''merge''' to Biblical criticism which seems to be a good home for this. Allegations that !voting to "keep" are based on  don't hold water for me: I'd not visited the website until now. But a cursory check to the article showed sources added and 600,000 + g hits so it has some notabilty, in my view
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Widely quoted in forums, widely criticized as irrelevant (therefore ''mentioned'') on Christian apologetics sites (such as http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sab.html this one) but, according to Google, not getting enough in terms of scholarly attention to pass . References inserted are satisfactory, although the one in German would only qualify as trivial. --'''&nbsp;Blanchardb'''&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I'm prepared to  on this, technically it just about fails WP:WEB perhaps, but it's fairly widely quoted in blogs and on usenet and there are books written about it to try to counter it (even if they are self-published books.) However, the fact that the multi-million selling The rough guide to the internet covers it confers notability, since this suggests that they consider it a key part of the internet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)