Deletion of Human disguise (2nd nomination)

Comment: Setting aside the interpretation of what this means to the discussion about  I think a mistaken assumption perpetuated by the lead of the entry has to be clarified.  The first sentence of the lead claims that human disguise is "''a'' concept in computer science, fantasy, folklore, mythology, religion, literary tradition, iconography and science fiction" (emphasis and wikilinking choice mine).  The idea that it is "a", or one, concept across these fields is patently false and clearly not supported by any source used in the entry -- those who doubt this should note that the most salient quotes from the sources used have been provided in most of them as support.  Read them, you'll find nothing to support this claim, in fact the idea that it is "a" concept even within any of these fields is dubious at best and again not supported by any given sources.  The reason I bring this up is that the language of the entry seems to have misled people at this AfD, such as Fences and Windows above, or else these people are using sloppy and inaccurate expressions.   Either way I do not think anyone should be misled about this.  The lead of the entry is making a very false claim.  If it were to say that human disguises of various kinds can be identified in the literature of ... that would be a different matter.  This distinction is not simply nitpicky either, it is quite meaningful to the objections that some of us have to the entry
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: with an admonishment to the nominator per : "''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.''".  A renomination that ignores the consensus reached at DRV disregards the instructions set forth at . Perhaps if the nomiator had waited several months and was then able to make note of changes or lack thereof to the article, his nomination might have merit. But to return it to AFD with a rehashing of the same arguments from the 2-week-old deletion dicussion because of his diagreement with the consensus of the DRV keep, does not improve the project
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN||WP:POINT||WP:DEL)

Comment: and trout whack the nom for violating  and |climbing the Reichstag. Also suggest the nom study  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:REICHSTAG||WP:STICK||WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: sourcing is fine in the article. ''The article has no references from  that establish '' is clearly bogus as the article is well sourced.  One can argue that the cites aren't entirely on topic, but the nom didn't do so (and I think they are fine).  The other issues raised by the nom are in the "shades of gray" of policy (is this indiscriminate? I don't think so, etc.) In any case, it meets all of our inclusion guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: per our |deletion policy which states, "''Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be |disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.''"  and this is clearly a |disruptive renomination of this sort.  As for the article, it continues to improve and has excellent sources such as the multi-volume http://books.google.com/books?id=SQMQQyIaACYC&pg=PA202#v=onepage&q=&f=false Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy which amply demonstrate the |notability and |unoriginality of the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:BLOCK||WP:DISRUPT||WP:N||WP:OR)

Comment: Thwack, thwack.  Nope, still no whinny—this horse is dead.By now, it's been well and truly established that there is insufficient consensus to delete this article.  I take a very dim view of repeating the nomination again and again, in the hope that one day the keepers will fail to turn up so the material might be deleted out of sheer persistence.  See 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED)

Comment: example-farm and thus . No  sources discussing the concept rather than individual examples, thus the article has only a tenuous structure constructed out of ynthesis of these examples into a purported umbrella topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:SECONDARY||WP:S)

Comment: for the same reasons this entry was already deleted -- it violates , specifically by |synthesizing information that has not been discussed by any secondary or tertiary |reliable sources as part of a coherent and |notable topic.  It is frustrating to see so many people voting keep repeatedly for an entry that doesn't satisfy one of our most basic requirements.  It implies a serious lack of understanding of core principles regarding what constitutes original research, and how to properly use reliable sources.  Frightening to think what the encyclopedia will turn into should this faulty reasoning continue to spread through the editorial population.  Is there a vaccine for this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:SYNTH||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: Don't begrudge Verbal his nomination, this is a fine piece of Wikidrama. I thought the original Human suit article was a disaster, but the current article isn't setting off my  alarm bells. The article is about the concept of an ''other'' disguising themselves as a human, and I think the sources giving plenty of support to the notability of the concept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: A literary device that has been used throughout the recorded history of literature, mythology, and religion.   The article itself is well referenced.  The Westfahl references transcend merely the listing of examples, http://books.google.com/books?id=fNJRAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA163&dq=%22human+disguise%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=%22human%20disguise%22&f=false this quotes Voltaire discussing the concept used in the context of pagan deities, Judaism, and Christianity.  The nom has questioned the  of the subject; the Voltaire bit alone should establish notability.  As to the other claims of , , , and ; these are the result of there being so many examples of this device mixed with the eagerness of Wikipedians to add to story. Combining that with the need to "defend" the article from repeated attempts at deletion; has led to the long list of examples, some of which do go beyond the scope of what this article should be; I'm sorry but the Trix Rabbit?  The article's lead, which doesn't contain , , , or  is enough for my Keep !vote; the rest of it enhances the article, puts it into fantastic historical perspective, and more fully elucidates the point.  I would also like to point out the lack of assumption of good faith and the excessive badgering by both sides of this debate.  Everyone who has voiced an opinion on this page has done so because they believe they are making Wikipedia better and their opinion should be respected whether you agree with it or not. Other than that I have no strong opinions on this matter
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:PRIMARY||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:PRIMARY||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: nomination seems |pointy to me. Cheers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: You have GOT to be kidding me. The DRV for this article just closed TODAY. Why in the green hells do you want to re-start this drama? And don't give me the blah blah blah policy arguments. With as much drama as this article has created, you will NEVER get a consensus with this AFD, and quite frankly all the opening of a new AFD amounts to is disrupting wikipedia to make a |point. GIVE IT A REST ALREADY
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)