Deletion of Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

Comment: as recreation of an article decided to merge following a contentious debate. It's too soon to revisit the previous debate. This is nothing but an attempt to circumvent  with more canvassing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: You say  is not relevant because other similar manner articles not proves anything, but you also say it is ''"it's common sense and consensus shown elsewhere."'' If it is common sense shown elsewhere how lots of  in the first place. I say lots of  simply because you claim it is against wiki guidelines and policies to create such a page. ''Yet even Characters of Beowulf book deserves their own '''seperate''' pages, yet a '''collective''' list of dedicated songs to a notable person do not deserve a '''single''' page you claim
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: This is Articles for Deletion which, per , is only for hopeless cases, not huge articles on notable topics with dozens of sources.  Please take it to |Mergers for Discussion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:MRD)

Comment: Rachel Corrie is notable. Some of the items listed in the Public reactions article are definitely notable. However, most of it is just trivial information, which would be great on a personal website or Rachel Corrie tribute site, but not in an encyclopedia. For example, is it notable that Lorcan "Larry" Otway wrote two songs about Rachel? No. Who cares if Holly Gwinn Graham wrote a song? Lyra and Friends? I Can Lick Any Sonofabitch in the House? These songs and artists are not |notable in any way and are the songs are not mentioned in independent, |reliable sources. That they are for sale in iTunes or mentioned on the artist's website is irrelevant – they are not third-party sources that establish any notability for the songs. That they are important and great songs in Kasaalan's view (and they might ''be'' great songs; I haven't listened to the songs so I'm judging on encyclopedic importance alone, not my personal opinion of the music), does not influence whether they should be mentioned in the encyclopedia. The poems and memorial cards are also trivial. Then there are other problems with the article, such as the huge rehashing of the article for ''The Skies are Weeping'' and the repetition in the Notes section. These problems can be fixed, but they are representative of the larger issues – that "there is too much information to be incorporated in the main article" is false. There is too much irrelevant, non-notable information to be incorporated into the main article, but if only the notable information was mentioned in the main article, there would not be an issue. The token representation in this article of a few "negative" items is just that – token representation in the hope the article's bias will be overlooked. Like the previous AFD determined, this article is still a POV pro-Rachel fork. Rachel's death is sad, and her life is notable. However, Wikipedia is not a Rachel fansite
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NM||WP:reliable sources)