Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (5th nomination)
from a previously involved editor: I have no opinion yet on the other points raised, but this does not qualify as "recreation of a previously deleted article"&mdash;this one does look substantially different than the deleted versions. That doesn't mean it should be automatically be kept, but it does mean it should be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the outcome of previous AfDs. I haven't read most of the previous AfDs enough to know if the subject has been judged to be categorically non-notable, so I have no opinion yet on notability. But AfDs that were only about re-creation of deleted content (specifically AfD #4) are not really relevant here, as this is a more or less new article. Issues of notability and COI apply, but issues of re-creation do not.Also, in response to points raised by SlimVirgin and LessHeardvanU above: it is obvious that NBeale, while a helpful editor in other areas of the encyclopedia, is a single-minded COI editor when it comes to edits related to this article (as evidenced by edits to  and discussion surrounding this article). But articles are not deleted based on the behavior of their subjects, they are deleted based on non-adherence to core policies, so NBeale's behavior around this article is not really relevant to this AfD
— User:Rjanag, 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOR (Wikipedia:No original research)