Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Deaton (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 10:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Deaton

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Article is about a cryptocurrency lawyer who has announced a campaign for Elizabeth Warren's US Senate seat. He doesn't have any particular awards or distinctions as a lawyer to and I can't find enough press coverage to merit an article based on WP:GNG. He hasn't yet been elected to public office and so doesn't merit inclusion on those grounds. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Note the WP:AFD discussion two months ago - nothing material has changed that I can see. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cryptocurrency, Law, and Massachusetts. Skynxnex (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, what happened here was that User:Dema9049, the article creator, blew off the prior AfD result of redirect, restored the article, the redirect was restored, and Dema9049 reverted the redirect, claiming "The AfD did not provide signification [sic] reasoning for this person to be deleted." That assessment was not theirs to make, obviously. I don't think we need a fresh discussion so much as restoring the redirect that was the outcome of the prior AfD, and to at the very least give User:Dema9049 -- whose talk page history has multiple admonitions against edit warring and template removal -- a very stern warning, and perhaps a page ban. Paging @User:Liz, who did the close of the first AfD. Ravenswing 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. The only thing that made me Wikipedia:Assume good faith here was that the article text has changed quite a bit since the last AFD. But the notability of the subject of the article doesn't appear to have changed at all. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I still don't see notability, even in the field of crypto law. He's only mentioned in passing in regards to a few law cases and there are no biographies in law journals about this person. Still a thin attempt at PROMO I think, given the recent deletion/recreation and rather passionate discussion by someone in his sphere of influence in the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that comes close in Gscholar is various latency simulators discussed in journal articles; I don't think they're related to this field of law, but neither is in my wheelhouse, so I don't know. Still feels like a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's really depressing that someone can just ignore the result of an AfD and recreate the page with no repercussions. This page--which was deleted after editors agreed Deaton is not notable--has now been live on WP for almost an entire month. And I'm sure once the page gets deleted again, its creator will just publish it again, and they'll probably get away with it. Again. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2024 (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.