Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester See (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 speedily deleted by User:Kudpung under criterion G4. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 13:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chester See

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

OK...this page was AFDed last fall and the result was delete. Recently the page has been created again and numerous other versions (e.g., Chester Yeah!, Chester Yeah, etc.) have been redirected to it. The underlying problems are that it's a poorly sourced BLP, not notable per WP:N and has an inexplicable Chester Yeah section at the Go Phightins! (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be speedily deleted then. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The author has admitted it being the same content, so this should get speedied. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 03:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, though the reason I tagged it for AFD rather than CSD is that it had previously been removed through AFD, so I figured it would be good to ensure consensus before giving it the boot for the second time--Go Phightins! (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to do it that way too, especially because non-admins can't tell what the previous, deleted content was. The text at the bottom "Even though the page Chester Yeah! has been deleted, here is what it said, Chester See should be Chester Yeah!" would be the reason I'd flag it for a speedy, let's see what happens. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 03:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this looks an open-and-shut Speedy case given there's no contest about the repetition of a deleted article. Failing that, just delete it as not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but as I said in both my nomination and above, I just felt more comfortable ensuring community consensus rather than a simple tag...though it was tagged and a terrific dissension was posted on the talk page...Go Phightins! (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, delete Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 12:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per A7 for practically the bazillionth time. With all the recreations, I wouldn't be surprised if the next recreation would be named "Chester No", "Chester Maybe", "Chester Ees", I mean, the list goes on! Zappa O Mati 13:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, User:Dragon Loy has created some redirects to this page, Chester Yeah, Chester Thing, and Chester Yeah!, which pretty much would extend the Chester See article creation program. Zappa O Mati 13:07, 23 September 2012 (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.