Deletion of Magic in Negima (2nd nomination)

Comment: again, per the excellent nom.  A big ol' pile of , essentially
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: again as per the superb nomination. Completely lays out all the extremely valid reasons for deletion. Remerging would be rididculous, as you'd simply move the issue to another article (regardless of how much content is merged). The  arguement against deletion is grasping at straws, a 14month delay is more then ample time between nominations, and the nomination is justified
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)

Comment: on all the grounds given by the nominator. Remerging does not seem to be a good option, since this material does not belong in an encyclopedia (
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMANUAL)

Comment: Per the well-worded nomination; no evidence of any |notability whatsoever, fails #PLOT
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:NOT)

Comment: In the first AfD, I recommended to transwiki this to the wikia:anime|Anime Wikia. But that project appears to be pretty much dead. The original problems still remain, first and foremost is that there is not a |single reliable, third-party source on the subject of the article. Second, this is still an |excessive amount of plot detail with little real-world context, and what context there is is entirely |original research. As for the IP's  argument, perhaps he/she should read the page before using it again. This nomination doesn't fall under  do to two factor. First, this is the second time the article was nominated for deletion. If this was like the eighth nomination, then  may have some legitimate bases, but not on a second nomination. Second, it has been well over a year since the first nomination. Again  is only a valid arguement if the previous nomination was a few days or a few weeks ago, but not a whole year. In fact, using  as the main reason to keep is itself a bad argument as detailed by 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:BURDEN||WP:NOTPLOT||WP:NOR||WP:NOTAGAIN)