Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination)
The nomination fails to address the result of the previous nomination which was "'''keep'''".  It is therefore disruptive per .  Such repeat nominations, made without the due diligence of , are vexatious because they waste the time of editors on futile argument.  In this case, I just prepared a detailed !vote but my browser crashed and now I've got to do it all again.  The third time is the charm, eh?  To make sure, let's raze the arguments of the nomination
— NONE, NONE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:DELAFD||WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)