Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fredinburg (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan_Fredinburg[edit]

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

Subject does not meet criteria for notablity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comet1440 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing changed since last AfD, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Fredinburg Just citing notability seems to be off, since notability has been established, you just have to read the 1st AFD. It appears that user Comet1440 did not read the 1st AFD. Notability has been established for his work and media presence. There are also still news articles written, which mention him. prokaryotes (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although the primary thing that makes this personal notable is that he died young in a dramatic and tragic way. However, his death was widely covered in the news media, so there are ample sources to support an article. LaMona (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is sound and well-sourced. Subject continues to be mentioned in accounts of Everest avalanches and their aftermath. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am troubled that the nominator of this 2nd AfD would stoop to altering my vote and comment while deleting other "'Keep" votes. It is THIS offending editor, and not the Dan Fredinburg article, which should be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2015 (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.