The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the community has decided several times this and related articles should be deleted they keep being recreated. It looks as if this article still fails the policies cited in the previous AfD's (see below).
My view is it fails policy on several levels.
In short, if we take out what is not supported by independent non-promotional sources the entire article would contain two sentences (hyperbole). Please comment on the need to keep such an article. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process.
Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive.
— Omegatron 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article.