Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape in Northeast India (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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Rape in Northeast India
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fork of List of rape cases in India There is nothing new in this article. Any content usable belongs in the Rape in India‎ article Darkness Shines (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and close: article was nominated a month ago and kept with overwhelming support. This nomination is disruptive. -- lTopGunl (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, just coming to the point, didn't an admin (cannot recall at this point) say something somewhere (in regard to this) about renominations not supposed to be taking place within six months of an article being kept? If so, this seems like disruptive/tedentious editing and should probably be brought into notice as well.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 01:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it was Magog, or some one on his talkpage maybe, said that "re-AFDs" can't be done for 6 month after being kept. I'm not sure about that guideline though. A closer will know that better I guess. -- lTopGunl (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * AfD policy puts no restriction on how soon an article can be renominated and I'd just as soon assume good faith on the part of Darkness Rises (having just reviewed his user and talk pages, it seems he's an experienced and well-intentioned editor); however I do agree that, as with the first AfD, the criteria for nomination has not really been met. Snow (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the overwhelming consensus at Articles for deletion/Rape in Northeast India just a month ago, which it seems the nominator forgot.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 00:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep In fact, this is the first ever time I've felt like advocating a speedy procedural close. While I happen to agree, and have previously advocated, that a merger between this and several other similar articles would be best way to organize the content, an AfD, especially come so immediately on the heels of another with an overwhelming "Keep" vote is certainly not the way forward.  Though I am loathe to reiterate the obvious points already noted in detail in the last AfD, I'll nonetheless point out again that the article is well-sourced and easily clears the bar for both notability and verifiability and is thus not a candidate for AfD.  The nominating editor should have pursued the notion of a merger through an RfC and, if anything, has only set back the effort to amalgamate the material with that of other articles since any such effort will now, as after the first AfD, almost certainly be seen as an effort to do an end-run around around the AfD decision (which is all-but guaranteed to be another keep). Snow (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2012 (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.