Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C'tan (2nd nomination)
The nom is quite correct in that in the previous AfD, most of the keep arguments were weak at best. A good example is ''"Keep, article provides important information, why delete it?"'' Why, because the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is non-trivial coverage in |reliable '''independent''' sources. I have never before heard the idea that a second AfD lacks validity if we can't get everyone from the first one back. It has  long been accepted that |concensus can change
— User:Beeblbrox, 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:CCC (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)