":::I honestly really agree about the various fiction articles needing additional sourcing and more non-plot out of universe sections.  I just think that we spend way too much time in AfDs that could be spent finding these sources and expanding the articles.  Please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Yanehiro.  Notice how the nominated article looked versus after I edited it.  The nominator's concerns with the article were correct based on the article's appearance, which was followed up by an ultimately incorrect claim that she's ""just some random business person who happened to write part of an unsuccessful book.""  I did some quick digging on the woman and discovered that she's actually considered a ""broadcast pioneer,"" won major awards and recognitions (Emmys and others from the United Nations even), in fact authored multiple books, is the president of a company, on the boards of others, has acted, hosted, and produced films and television shows, etc.  This article on a woman with clear real-world notability had been sitting around as a stub for nearly two years before in one hour I improved it to the point that the nominator wrote, ""Given the additions to the article and the references cited, I concede that the article should remain as it is currently.""  Now imagine what I would be able to accomplish if I did not also have to go back and fourth with editors in AfDs or if some of the editors I go back and forth with helped me to improve the articles under question.  Other examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and the Pumpkin Queen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Resident Evil 4 (an article that was rated A-Class and is being assessed as a potential good article), or  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean, as well as many others.  Notice that these articles range from being about a real-world journalist to children's books to aspects of a video game.  I would greatly prefer to just focus on improving these articles, but please notice that in these examples, while several editors did revisit their stances, several others just ""voted"" in the AfDs and never commented on the improvements one way or another.  Consider for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy).  By the end of the discussion, the article had undergone a significant sourcing revision that caused you to write, ""Keep in its rewritten form It's not much but it is enough to avoid deletion.""  And yet it closed as delete!  Several of those who argued delete had not commented on these improvements and two of the delete accounts turned out to be socks ( and ).  Think of all that discussion wasted with sock accounts that could have been spent improving the article as was done by the end only too late for anyone to actually revisit their stance.  Anyway, as you can also see at , I have a little bit more variety of arguments than I think people realize in AfDs and I guess I just wish those advocating to delete (who also advocate to keep far less frequently than I argue to delete) and who approach AfDs as a vote without ever taking into account how discussion progresses or improvements made to the article during the discussion would just help out more in fixing some of these articles, because if I can improve them, I'm sure others can too.  Best, ''''  

 "