Deletion of LG15: The Last (2nd nomination)

Comment: Qualifies as frivolous renomination as described in , given that not only was the last AfD just a month ago, but he actually Talk:LG15: The Last#Merge|tried to merge the page away afterwards and the decision to keep the page as-is was made just two weeks ago, and therefore falls under the disruption clause of speedy keep applicability.In addition, there is a proposed merging structure in last month's AfD which already had support from other community members, so a deletion is not necessary in any case.As usual, this is just another iteration of Otter being unable to  and , and everything I said last time in support still applies. I'll copy it over if somebody insists, but something tells me we'll all see each other again next month anyway.~ Renegade - Special:Contributions/213.39.173.221|213.39.173.221
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN||WP:GETOVERIT||WP:LETGO)

Comment: The article is well-sourced and notable. Also, this (and the previous) nomination leads me to the conclusion that this was a |bad faith nomination, not to mention  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AOBF||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:POINT)

Comment: Per , which states "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN)