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 Procedural close. This is already being discussed at DRV. That's got two days left to run. It's silly to be running parallel discussions. If the DRV results in this being kept, no prejudice against renomination, but let's do them one at a time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Post-closure note: The deletion review concluded with decision "relist", i.e. to re-open the original AFD, which is ongoing now. So for any future discussion, the most recently concluded AFD will be the first AFD, not the second AFD. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Eliot Cutler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(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

I listed six sources at the deletion review. Either way, this AFD should be closed until the deletion review is finished.-- TM 23:58, 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 ("This was at AfD before with consensus to delete, but it was recreated despite my effort to point that out") is that there was a previous AFD, which is not valid. Maybe there is an implication about GNG, which is nonsense, there is tons available. There is no mention of performing wp:BEFORE. 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

@ Doncram: Yeah, and the article shouldn't have been recreated since there was already a discussion to recreate what was already AfD'd. What do you mean the previous AfD wasn't valid? All AfD's are valid, and Wikipedia doesn't count polls for votes, it counts the points made. I say Speedy Delete because the 1st AfD was so recent and no more info was added so notability wasn't established still. The deletion review discussion determines recreation, not some user who created a crappy article. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

What I said is that just because there was a previous article and AFD, is not a valid reason why a new, different article cannot be created.

Okay, now there is a claim that the new article has "no more info added". That claim was not made in the deletion nomination. Hey, at this point I simply don't believe you. There is an outstanding request at the deletion review for someone to please temporarily restore a copy of the original article. Also the deleting administrator and another administrator have been individually asked to provide a copy, and have not. Are you an administrator? If not, how do you know whether the new article is different or not. If you are an administrator, would you please provide a copy? Either way, this is stuff that may be resolved in the deletion review. So this new AFD is not helpful and should be immediately closed as an administrative matter by anyone. -- Doncram ( talk) 14:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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.