Deletion of Individual

Comment: It's the nomination that is a mess as it starts with  and supports this with an essay rather than policy.  We then get a rambling spray of possibilities contrary to  and these clearly demonstrate that there are sensible |alternatives to deletion.  This nomination shows no appreciation of the fact that this is one of Wikipedia's oldest articles, having been started by Larry Sanger in 2001.  The trouble with this topic is obviously that it is a |broad and philosophical one and so difficult to write well.  And, as we are all individuals, the topic invites |bike-shedding.  But our |editing policy is clear: "''Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.''"  For an example of a well-written encyclopedic article on this topic, see the ''https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biology-individual/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:RUBBISH||WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:ATD||WP:BROAD||WP:SHED||WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: Nobody has shown yet that there exist a single source on the topic of "individual" that can be used to satisfy GNG. The current article is an essay-ish, unreferenced mess and should be a disambig. Please note that  is not an appopriate vote
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSNOTABLE)