Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Fletcher (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. I looked at the original deleted article, and it looks nothing like the current article. Therefore, G4 does not apply. Citations indicate notability, and The Freechild Project has been kept. Further discussion should be held to determine if this should be merged to The Freechild Project or not. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Fletcher (2nd nomination)

Adam Fletcher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article Adam Fletcher is recreation of a page deleted previously. Notability not established; probably autobiographical in whole or in part. Bringing to AfD instead of speedy delete because I don't know what the content of the earlier article was and because article is related to The Freechild Project, which is the subject of another ongong AfD discussion. orlady 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Aargh! The templates are not set up for doing a new AfD (instead of a speedy delete) on an article deleted previously. When I used the template for a first deletion, the old closed deletion debate came up. With the template for second nomination, nothing works properly, probably because the previous debate was on an article that was deleted already.--orlady 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have cleaned up the AfD nomination for you. J Milburn 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Possible keep Not having see the original article, the present article has citations that indicate notability, and I will discuss further if it is thought appropriate to consider it here. DGG 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still not notable, although not really a repost of previous content. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, if The Freechild Project is considered notable and kept. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Possible merge to The Freechild Project if notable, but I'm not convinced the two articles, together, are notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. I just listened to him at a youth rally in Denver, and he's awesome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.88.121.211 (talk • contribs) 15:17, April 7, 2007 (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.