Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleeckie (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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeckie[edit]

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

I feel so dreadful nominating this but my Wikipedianess won't let me avoid it. Please don't hate me Bleeckie, but, I fear that you might not pass our notability guidelines. There are a few local bits coverage, but, the nomination I don't think stands up to our notability guidelines and I can't find a lot of other decent sources. So, I bring Bleeckie back to the community to discuss it. She was deleted one time before. SarahStierch (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations to any sources at all, just a few inline urls. If there is a passionate user, perhaps it could be userified and maybe turned into an article on her creator, whose notability should in theory be a superset of the character. Especially a young artist might become more notable after more than three years, but is not yet. W Nowicki (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2013 (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.