Deletion of SkyscraperCity (4th nomination)

Comment: we have given it time to develop substantive coverage in multiple independent |reliable sources, and the best we get are mere mentions (like http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/history/north-east-tyneside-ghost-signs-10039189 this and http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2015/7/15/8965461/watch-first-unofficial-3d-render-of-new-stamford-bridge this touted by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a directory  In all the years that this website has been posted and re-posted, here and in Portugal, there has never been any meaningful associated content. There is nothing to say here other than post directory info like membership numbers and Alexa rating. Special:Contributions/97.99.101.135|97.99.101.135
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: It strikes me as odd that an article about a fictional video game, Races of StarCraft, can hold greater notability that a well-known website. I think this is a major flaw in the  system as well as , but that won't have much of an impact on this AfD as it will be business as usual
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: I was for deleting above, and I can't see where it clearly and obviously passes GNG, but there are so many pointers and minor mentions and other factors that make me think this is bordering on a  KEEP.  I think I've done that twice in 50,000 edits, so it isn't something I use often.  It boils down to "is Wikipedia better off with or without the article?" and I think we are better off with since it is so well known, I just can't find enough sources to pass the normal criteria, and it clearly doesn't.  Keep in mind, criteria isn't a hard pass/fail line, it is a fuzzy line, a really good general purpose guideline that works 99.99% of the time.  This isn't a spam article, or some wannabe superbusinessman's biography, it is an article on a website that is references an insane number of times by other high quality websites, meaning this might qualify to be that .01%.  This is exactly the circumstance that  exists for: exceedingly rare situations where we are better off ignoring the rules.  It is just a matter of whether others agree we are better off with it or not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:IAR)