Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bisexual lighting (2nd 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 per WP:SKCRIT #6 ... consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link [from the main page] before nominating for deletion. That the previous AfD was only a week ago is problematic; challenges to such a recent close should generally be directed to Deletion review. (non-admin closure) —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Bisexual lighting
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Too trivial. (NO SPEEDY KEEP, PLEASE. ASK THAT THE HOOK BE REMOVED FROM DYK.) Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 02:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep; Appropriately-sourced and growing in its notability. Perhaps a merge with Bisexual pride flag would be a decent compromise, but that's not my preferred outcome.  Bruzer Fox  02:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was just closed a week ago and found keep. Why is it being nominated again? matt91486 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. You can't renominate an article whose deletion request failed SIX DAYS AGO.  If that were permitted, people would re-litigate every Wikipedia decision constantly.  Wikipedia policy states:  "Users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly.  It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome."  I don't care about this article, but I care about the integrity of the process -- and the vote was almost unanimous for Keep in the previous discussion. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 03:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. per Lawrence King. I should also ask you, where do you propose to migrate this content to if the page does get deleted? This is some valuable information that has been properly cited, too. It’s be a shame to just delete it off the face of the encyclopedia. As far as many users are aware here, you’ve failed to make a substantial argument for the deletion of this article other than “I don’t think it’s good”. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 03:31, 6 May 2018 (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.