Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (2 nomination)
Many articles are listed, relisted, and listed again at AfD; most of these are good-faith attempts to benefit the project, and this appears to be one of those cases. To say that ''it was kept once already, so it should be kept again'' is circular logic: if indeed the article should be kept this time as well, there should be valid arguments to that point, rather than the simple fact that it did survive a previous attempt for ''x'' reason.  Establishing a consensus, and reaffirming that consensus, hardly constitutes double jeopardy; the quality of the article can change over time, facts about the subject of the article can change over time, and so on, and comparing the article then to the article now may ultimately be comparing apples and oranges, rather than (to continue the example) "trying the same article twice". Regardless, bear in mind that double jeopardy or anything to that effect is not a policy, nor is it a guideline. Notability, however, is a guideline, and regardless of the outcome of the first AfD and/or the reason the original administrator closed it as a keep, the article should be able to (but as far as I can see, does not) stand on its own merits... and I will repeat myself: those recommending to keep are advised to find |reliable sources indicating if and how the notability guidelines are met
— User:Kinu, 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)