Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Dauterive (3rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dauterive[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is pure original research and in-universe essay. Sources do not cover the subject in any detail. Prior discussion at [1] seemed to indicate these should be sent individually, not as a group. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The result of the prior discussion was to keep the page as there was no consensus to delete it. No reason is provided to change this and so it's just a case of WP:KEEPLISTING contrary to WP:DELAFD, " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome". Andrew (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Subject is notable. Improve the article if need be, don't delete.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Keep" vote by Andrew doesn't address the deletion rationale. Instead it refers to the result of old AfDs and makes an assumption of bad faith. I am neutral on the topic of deletion. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale is false. It states that the article is "pure original research and in-universe essay". You simply have to read the article to see that it, for example, tells you who the voice actor is. That's neither original nor in-universe. Andrew (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, the article is only 9/10ths original research. The actual content about the voice actor isn't enough for an article. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 21:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[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.