Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot Cutler (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:46, 21 September 2018

Eliot Cutler

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. WP:NPOLITICIAN.This was at AfD before with consensus to delete, but it was recreated despite my effort to point that out. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. There is an ongoing deletion review about the previous article and its AFD, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018 September 17#Eliot Cutler, which includes discussion of basic notability of the topic, and discussion of the new article and whether it is different from the deleted article. There is Talk page of the article to discuss the new version, too. I have requested at the deletion review that the old version be restored to draftspace, to inform both the deletion review and the Talk page discussion. This new AFD is duplicative and not helpful. I suggest immediate closure, without prejudice to it being re-started after deletion review is concluded. --Doncram (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'd rather not discuss notability here, because it is being discussed elsewhere, but I believe this person obviously meets NPOLITICIAN, which accepts "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". --Doncram (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate that coverage. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is partly the topic of the deletion review, where i have provided some links going to notability from having clicked on Google books search link.

Or you could push on Google news search link and find this profile amidst dozens of articles in Maine newspapers and CNN and on and on.  Again, process-wise, I think this 2nd AFD should be closed as an administrative matter. --Doncram (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Speedy Delete’’’ - this was previously deleted just weeks ago. The ongoing discussion to undo that determines recreation, not the user who undid the redirect I set up. This was an uncalled-for recreation outside the scope of the aforementioned discussion. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I can't unpack what you are saying. The main reason given for this AFD is that there was a previous AFD, which is not valid. Maybe also about GNG, which is nonsense, there is tons available. And there is an ongoing discussion, the deletion review, which touches on notability, so this 2nd AFD is not helpful IMO. --Doncram (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ::P.S. I'd rather not discuss notability here, because it is being discussed elsewhere, but I believe this person obviously meets NPOLITICIAN, which accepts "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". --[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 17:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 :::Please demonstrate that coverage. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
-::::That is partly the topic of the deletion review, where i have provided some links going to notability.  Again, process-wise, I think this 2nd AFD should be closed as an administrative matter. --[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 18:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
+::::That is partly the topic of the deletion review, where i have provided some links going to notability from having clicked on Google books search link.
+ Or you could push on Google news search link and find [https://www.pressherald.com/2014/07/13/the-early-years-eliot-cutler/ this profile] amidst dozens of articles in Maine newspapers and CNN and on and on.  Again, process-wise, I think this 2nd AFD should be closed as an administrative matter. --[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 18:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians|list of Politicians-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty!]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|talk]]) 17:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Maine|list of Maine-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty!]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|talk]]) 17:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)</small>
 *’’’Speedy Delete’’’ - this was previously deleted just weeks ago. The ongoing discussion to undo that determines recreation, not the user who undid the redirect I set up. This was an uncalled-for recreation outside the scope of the aforementioned discussion. [[User:Redditaddict69|<b style="color:#3399FF">Redditaddict69</b>]] [[User talk:Redditaddict69|<sup style="color:#339900">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Redditaddict69|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(contribs)</sup>]] 18:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
+::Huh?  I can't unpack what you are saying.  The main reason given for this AFD is that there was a previous AFD, which is not valid.  Maybe also about GNG, which is nonsense, there is tons available.  And there is an ongoing discussion, the deletion review, which touches on notability, so this 2nd AFD is not helpful IMO. --[[User:Doncram|Doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 18:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)