- Eliot Cutler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I asked the closing editor to reopen the discussion, which was refused. I also asked for the page to be userfied, which was ignored. The deletion discussion featured only 4 comments, only one of which made a policy-based argument. None of whom were members of Wikiproject Maine or regular editors to Maine political articles. There have been a number of in-depth sources that covered Eliot Cutler during and after his two high-profile runs for Governor of Maine, including but not limited to [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Cutler was a two-time major candidate for Governor of a US state and in 2010 he was nearly elected Governor. It should surprise no one that multiple sources covered he and his campaign in-depth, which is what WP:GNG is supposed to be about. Just today, another editor attempted to restart the article, which speaks to the notability of the topic as well. TM 23:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on earth doesn't Deletion Review automatically provide a link to the decision being reviewed? In this case it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot Cutler. --Doncram (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - The original article was evidently pretty poor (can't see it myself, so I can't verify), but I don't see how he isn't encyclopedic. There was little discussion or participation in the original AfD, so at the very least this could use more eyeballs on it before making a call. Admittedly, minor candidates for state office who receive 2% of the vote don't belong here, but Cutler received about a quarter million votes and 38% of the total, much more than the Democrat, in an election for governor. The current redirect is also flawed, as it goes to the 2010 election, even though he was also a candidate in 2014 (he didn't do nearly as well, but got over 8% - more than enough to once again play the spoiler). We have many articles on much more minor individuals. I just want to say that when I, who was at one time one of the most active deletionists on the site, think that an article is warranted, it tells you something. -R. fiend (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn For a losing major party candidate for a position like this, there will always be enough press, and it's time we just accepted the articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Absolutely nothing wrong with the close. We typically do not keep articles for unelected candidates for a variety of different reasons. SportingFlyer talk 05:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't we? Major candidates in gubernatorial elections? I haven't done a thorough search, but it seems we have articles on second place finishers in any such election I've looked at, and this guy's run twice. In fact, in a quick search I'm seeing articles on quite a few less significant politicians who didn't even win their gubernatorial primary, let alone get almost 40% in the general election. Man, there was a time when you couldn't get articles on guys who got 2% of the vote in a House primary deleted (not that I want to return to such a time, but still). -R. fiend (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD had only four votes, but you've got one in front of you where only one keep existed, which was weak and based on a false assumption. Furthermore, politician articles tend to be deleted more often than not: [[7]] SportingFlyer talk 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist or draftify. The AfD could have used could have used more participation, and the arguments to delete weren't very strong. If a redirect was an appropriate ATD, I'm not sure if deleting the revision history was necessary. If people are willing to work on the article, I think it could be possible to treat the result as a soft delete and draftify the article as if it had gone to WP:REFUND. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The re-started article was redirected with an edit summary linking to the AFD. I reverted that. The fact of an AFD does not preclude an article being re-started, and the current version might have different content, sources, than before (I can't tell). --Doncram (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, an editor re-redirected it, inappropriately IMO, and I just restored it again. Discussion about that, which is not about the AFD decision but rather is about the new article, should be at its Talk page, Talk:Eliot Cutler.
- REQUEST: COULD SOMEONE PLEASE RESTORE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE TO DRAFTSPACE for purposes of informing this deletion review discussion and for purpose of separate discussion about the new version. I can't tell if there are new/different sources in the new version. IMO it is abuse of admin tools to simply delete a new article, just because there was a previous AFD on the topic, if there is anything different in the new article, which I believe to be the case.--Doncram (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or draftify or merge edit history to new article [see my vote below]. I agree with sentiment expressed by User:Alpha3031. The AFD discussion was weak, with only the nominator asserting that GNG was not met but no others attempting to discuss sources, e.g. just asserting "a clearly non-notable candidate". The close as "Delete" was not clearly wrong, IMO, but would have arguably been wrong if the immediate creation of a redirect was part of it (because it would be better to keep the edit history in the redirect, for all the good reasons that usually apply, i.e. to enable creation later if/when better sources are provided, etc.) It seems the redirect was separate though, was created by someone different than the closer. But also it seems clear enough to me that the person is in fact notable.
- Anyhow, I believe the new article is okay, though it is being contested (and there is now a new, 2nd AFD, which i think is not helpful). IMO, the new article should be kept but the edit history of old article should be merged. This could happen in mainspace or draftspace, just someone should fix the bad outcome of it having been deleted (though not the fault of the closer) somehow. --Doncram (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually a deletion review should not be about basic notability, but I cannot see how this person does not meet NPOLITICIAN, they are discussed in numerous independent sources e.g. for their use of television advertising in book "Campaigns on the Cutting Edge" and there is passing mention in book "Election 2014: Why the Republicans Swept the Midterms" and that is just a couple hits in Google books, and there will be many other mentions in newspapers, and there are already a number of incoming links from Wikipedia articles including one on spoiling elections. Wikipedia should provide the reference function about who is this guy. The 2010 Maine gubernatorial article does not provide that. The remedy is not to say the close was wrong, but to acknowledge the topic is probably notable and to fix the edit history. I'll stop now. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ’’’WP:BLP1E’’’. Just one event, an independent candidacy that spoiled an election. Second candidacy didn’t do anything—it was 8% not almost 38%. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify/overturn since the original AfD didn't get too much participation. This is a borderline case of someone who might merit an article. Also procedural close the new AfD and merge the histories. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse While the discussion did not have the greatest of participation, there was no question about whether the close was proper and within the closer's discretion. In fact, if the closer made another decision, there would be much more discussion. There were three arguments made for delete and the only editor for "keep" described their argument as weak. The AfD was open for a week. While we could use this forum and WP:IAR to reargue the merits of the AfD or how the community generally feels about WP:NPOL, there is nothing to suggest that the closer's decision was incorrect based upon the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrative notes: I've closed WP:Articles for deletion/Eliot Cutler (2nd nomination) to let this discussion run its course. I've also undeleted the earlier history so it can be reviewed and compared to the current version; this looks like the most recent deleted revision. People are free to continue to edit the current version, but please don't revert it back to the redirect until and unless that's the outcome of this discussion; just treat this as a draft for now, minus some bureaucratic renaming. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm old enough to recall Eliot (sic.) Cutler being in the news and being very notable. He is notable because he was in the news all the time for a while when Jimmy Carter was president -- Cutler was controversial. Then, years later, he ran twice for governor of Maine, doing very well for an indpendent. Once notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say "endorse" you mean you endorse the deletion of the article, yet your argument seems to say you think his article should be restored. Can you clarify? -R. fiend (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging User:Bearian to make sure he saw the above question. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - I think it should have been kept, and the admin made an honest mistake, as I did here, but it needs work, so send it back to use space for fixing. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify revision that was deleted in August until notability is 100% established. As of now, it doesn't appear to be. I don't see sufficient coverage for WP:SIGCOV Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I commented above before a copy of previous version of article was made available (thank you to User:RoySmith for providing that). Informed by the previous version, I say "overturn" the deletion decision, or "relist" would be okay, because it was clear enough that this was a notable topic from (a) the poor quality of discussion in the AFD (mainly unsupported assertions, no discussion of sources), yet (b) 24(!) reasonably high-quality references in the article itself, and (c) the obviously state-level importance of the person (because he was a major governor candidate and he is obviously covered again and again in all of the state and regional newspapers and magazines and so on, already evident in the article, not even requiring looking at other sources provided in this deletion review, and not requiring looking for CNN and other national-level coverage about him that exists). A couple times above it and/or in the AFD it was mentioned that he got 38% in one state-wide election but only 8% in another, with sneering at the 8%, and the article was redirected to one about the 38% election. However that 8% was more than the difference between the other candidates, it has been pointed out, and he had history and momentum and importance, and it is relevant/interesting/important to provide some room for coverage of how he nonetheless failed _and_ was a spoiler of these elections.
- A note: it is not taboo to note that an administrator made a mistake. It doesn't have to be a big deal. Administrators do not need to circle the wagons and insist that a decision was reasonable. Right, it could be you next time who is criticized in effect, by others saying you neglected to consider some important stuff. So what, that is NO BIG DEAL. It is a big deal, though, for the process of deletion review to be accurate and to say it like it is. Because otherwise, what the eff is this for. --Doncram (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
