Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bash.org
as abstaining  party - Previous discussion:  '''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bash.org|unanimous keep'''.  I know there was one more, but I have thus far been unable to find it (it was sometime in 2005 I believe).  I would like to again state that I believe this article has existed in a state of |cognative dissonance because of the unique nature of web phenomenon not existing in traditionally |reliable sources.  I would also suggest that the mere existance of so many people showing up to voice strong opposition to deletion (every time) is an indication that the site is indeed notable in the pure sense of the word.  If you could see how many instant messages and emails I get about bash.org, or saw the weblogs you'd think twice about calling it a "''mildly obscure website''".  I also urge you to reconsider basing your argument (in part) on Alexa rankings -- a site need not be a slashdot to be notable.  The major problem that I see is not with , but with .  There will likely '''never''' be a source that fully complies with  that will cover bash.org.  One of the major tasks I've always tried to undertake has been ensuring factual accuracy of the article, which has been massively difficult because of .  I think the arguments that "''it's not notable''" (a ''guideline'') have been obviously trumped by common sense (as the comments on this page show); I do see the problems with  (as a ''policy'') and can only promise that if NYT or NBC want to do an interview on bash.org I will fully comply
— User:Blaxthos, 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:COI||WP:IAR||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:OR||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)