Deletion of Master Shake (2nd nomination)

Comment: DRV is for, well, reviewing AfD closures. I don't think anyone is contending that the last AfD was improperly closed. I am unaware of any rule that says recreating a deleted article, no matter how long ago the deletion was, must go through DRV (at least when no unsalting is needed). Indeed, that would make DRV quite unmanageable. DRV does sometimes consider new sources, but that is AFAIK normally incident to its review of a closure, to decide if a relist is warranted in light of the sources (again, assuming that we are not talking about unsalting). Is anyone actually proposing to reopen and relist that 2-year-old AfD? As to the merits, for the reasons well stated by A Nobody, this article passes  with ease
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: and continue improvements toward an independent article or a suitable merge resulting from a discussed compromise. With respects to TNN, I am not a "diehard inclusionist" and have !voted delete at many AfDs. The first AfD was nearly two years ago... and I am not in any way suggesting that the closure in 2007 was incorrect. But the world continues to turn... and it is |not too difficult a stretch me to believe that the continued coverage of ATHF since that first AfD might now provide sourcing that could allow the article to better meet the requirements of . With an understanding that consensus is not eternal, and that growth is the purpose of Wikipedia and not its bane, I do not think it unreasonable to allow the article to be improved so as to better the project as a whole
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:COMMONSENSE||WP:N)

Comment: per Deor. This was an inappropriate recreation of a previously discussed and deleted article. That's what  is for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: the last AfD, was in November 2007! Going to DRV would be needless and this article easily passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as above per DGG who is quite right about the fact that this article is excessive. The "sources" are just guff adduced to satisfy in name only our standards at . Sadly, it looks as if a successful canvass effort from the ARS keepmongers will lead to a no consensus keep
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)