- 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. Please do not keep renominating an article just because you don't like the outcome. Doing so is considered disruptive. Give it at least a couple months before nominating it again. In the meantime, feel free to work on improving the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nanaho Katsuragi[edit]
- Nanaho Katsuragi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Repeating previous arguments + Angus's analysis with WP:NPASR.
ANN/video game search results:
1) Crayon Kingdom (Cloud - main)
2) Doremi (Ms Seki - supporting)
3) Digimon: Data Squad (Kudamon - supporting)
4) Fafner (Yoko Hazama - supporting)
5) Setsuka (Soulcalibur series - main supporting)
Relisting once again this is a renomination. Subject only has Cloud as her main role; rest are supporting. Subject has yet to garner enough main, significant roles to assert her notability. An article should either be kept or deleted - there is no in between. It is important to reach a proper consensus in AFDs. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- procedural speedy keep Once again this is a renomination of an afd that has been closed for one day as no consensus. Given that the nominator continues to relist such afd's despite objections as well as being quite forceful with demands that we must have a consensus rather than allow time for improvement, I struggle to assume good faith with such a listing. However as the nominator got his way on one article and had it deleted after displaying obvious bias towards his desired outcome this appears to be validating his approach. A line needs to be drawn to prevent these trivial relistings and the demands of an editor who has continues to show poor judgement. The continued lack of respect for completed procedure is not helpful to the A&M project or Wikipedia in general. Sufficient time should be allowed to pass before a new afd and a day, or even a month is not really sufficient. Edit: The guideline does not prohibit relisting and even suggests it, but this is up for interpretation, after all it was already relisted twice within the previous afd and therefore ran for several weeks. Either way, the justification for nomination is because the nominator is not happy with the outcome, which as a reason for renomination is not a convincing one. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- 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.