Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanaho Katsuragi (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 speedy close per previous discussion being closed as 'no consensus to delete'. Sk8erPrince is admonished to not make further pointy nominations without allowing a couple months to pass first. Obsessing over this article is disruptive, and furhter pointy nominations may result in further actions. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nanaho Katsuragi

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

AFD 1 was closed as no consensus with WP:NPASR. AFD 2 was closed as speedy keep by an admin that has completely ignored an existing guideline, WP:NPASR. That guideline grants me the right to speedy renom any article for deletion, regardless of how long ago the previous AFD ended. Repeating previous arguments in an attempt to reach a clear consensus. Also, I beseech all of you that are willing to contribute to this AFD to not ignore WP:NPASR. It is an existing guideline, and none of you (including myself) are above it.

Repeating previous arguments + Angus and Joe's analyses. Quoting Joe from the article's talk page, "After spending some time looking for reliable sources to use to support this article, I have come up with exactly zero. There is no evidence I can find online that this person meets the requirements for inclusion."

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)

Subject has yet to garner enough significant/lead roles to assert her notability, nor are there any secondary news resources to be found to write up a detailed enough bio. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as out of process and disruptive. I personally think you are correct that WP:NPASR allowed you to start the second AFD right away, though I also agree that it would have been much better for you to wait a couple months. However, the close to the second AFD specifically instructed you to wait a couple months. If you disagreed with that close, the correct forum was deletion review, not ignoring the AFD close and starting a third AFD. Just ignoring both the AFD outcome and the proper forum for challenging that outcome is disruptive, and this should thus be speedy kept. Calathan (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:POINT, I have no problem with a neutral party re-nominating this for deletion or having the discussion taken to WP:DRV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2016 (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.