Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14 Year Old Girls (third nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14 Year Old Girls (third nomination)

second nomination - fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note - Previous AfD here. Tevildo 16:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, for all the reasons listed nigh-unaminously in the original AfD. These 'I didn't like the community's consensus last time, so I'll just roll the dice again' repeat nominations are one of my pet peeves. -Toptomcat 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep can you provide any more information as to why it fails MUSIC? If this is just an attempt to extend the first debate to get a desired result, then speedy close. Koweja 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per the previous two AFDs. If renominating, please at least give a thorough reason for deletion or explain what has changed since the last time. — brighterorange (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - And I agree with Toptomcat, seems like relisting simply because the last AfD didn't go the way some wanted it to. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I'm with Toptomcat on this one. Jcuk 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep given that this has been through AfD before and no substantive rationale is provided for deletion. Tarinth 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Ahem, to set the record staight, the result of the last AfD was NO CONSENSUS, which is not the same as KEEP. Still no independent sources of notability are provided on the page, to say nothing of independent and non-trivial as required by WP:MUSIC. They meet none of the specific criteria listed. You may find the page worthy of inclusion, but I strongly contest the idea that this AfD is not valid. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And I always thought the burden of proof was with the arguement that an article did pass notability. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Heathcliff 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.