Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey (3rd nomination)
This article will address Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey (3rd nomination) from different perspectives, in order to offer readers a comprehensive and detailed view on this topic. Relevant aspects will be analyzed, relevant data will be presented and various opinions from experts in the field will be offered. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey (3rd nomination) is a topic that arouses great interest and curiosity in today's society, so it is essential to delve into its study to understand its importance and impact in different areas. Throughout this article, different facets of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey (3rd nomination) will be explored, with the purpose of providing readers with a complete and enriching overview of this topic.
- 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. The previous nomination was made recently and closed as speedy keep. It's incredibly unlikely anything different will turn up here. NAC. Beerest355 Talk 16:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Kate Garvey (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)
Be Bold. This girl is NN. D. Wiki hero-worship Cruft. Train Derailment2013 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. While I initially voted to delete in the first AfD, as per OP's argument, I feel that this has become a serious, horrid case of re-nominating until you get the result you want. It's time for the community to accept that this article is here and only renominate it when there are some actual, new reasons to do so. This AfD presents nothing different to the last two (!) and I can't see any reason why we should sit through this again. — Richard BB 15:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Additional comment – It's also worth pointing out that OP's account is a brand new one, and 5/6 of his edits are all single-purpose in trying to delete this article (the sixth edit is to his own user page). A complete and utter bad-faith nomination. — Richard BB 15:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Be bolder. Speedy keep as an obvious bad-faith troll. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment by Nom. I am sincerely sorry you feel this way. I am, however, working with the best interests of the Wikipedia community (Gemeinschaft) in mind. Sometimes drastic measures must be taken in the name of the community's interest. Train Derailment2013 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed they must. I am considering proposing that any further nominations for deletion to this article be estricted to contributors with a good and substantial editing record. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting ridiculous. Keep. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 15:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Block troll, put this BLP under semiprotection, move on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2013 (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.