Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yurika Kubo


 * 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. Disruptive nomination. postdlf (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yurika Kubo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only has ONE MAJOR role, and it's just in an anime. Has only done animes and video games. Fails WP:NACTOR MayVenn (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 5.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 03:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - no deletion rationale presented. The article lists 16 television roles, a handful of OVA roles and a couple of game roles. Any analysis of which might be considered "significant" and why the others are not? "Just in an anime" or "only done animes and video games" are not valid reasons for deletion.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They may be right, as I think her only starring role is in Love Live!…I have been worried this article would be nominated for deletion, and I wouldn't want it to be deleted. I think a main Love Live! role would be enough to establish notability, but other users won't buy that... However, I think her roles in The "Hentai" Prince and the Stony Cat. and Kotoura-san should be considered significant, and make her meet WP:NACTOR. The rest of her anime roles are very minor; her role in Guided Fate Paradox might not count since she is credited as the Love Live! character. &mdash;innotata 03:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If we need a discussion about it, let's have one. But this shouldn't be it; this is just a pointy, harassing nomination not based on policy at all.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I suggest that this be closed; if another editor thinks this should be deleted, they can start a new AfD. &mdash;innotata 17:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as above. Perhaps the nominator, MayVenn, who is a new user, first edit 5 October 2014, should be forgiven for not understanding deletion practice and notability guidelines.  However, based on this edit where MayVenn said Some User chose to write a ton of articles about people who went to his fancy school for rich people in England. None of them are notable, but because some "Administrators" and "Senior Editors" love the British Empire they think we have to "open the floodgates" to everybody who got some medal or are in some "Who's Who",  ..., and this edit which said If even the British Empire-loving "Senior Ediotrs" who made most of these junk articles get kept think this should be deleted, that is a sign. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your fancy school and all the "famous" Imperialists who went there., this account seems to be a reincarnation of the Bristolbottom account which nominated 22 articles for deletion of Bedford Modern School alumni, only three of which were deleted, and most were keep will solid "keep" votes under clear guidelines. The MayVenn account is also similar to Bristolbottom in that they both immediately commenced AFD nominations as their initial edits. --Bejnar (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.