Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Fulton


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam Fulton
Not notable and not fit for an encyclopedia -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyzasatya (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Correction:WAS fit for an encyclopedia. Can be fixed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.52.246 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete. While there are 1,200 Google hits, most aren't about him. There is a lack of verifiable third party evidence about him. The most interesting thing is not even mentioned in the article .Capitalistroadster 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:ALL of them are, you just dont know how important he was to Newgrounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maricon (talk • contribs)
 * Note is a now-banned pagemove vandal. -- Curps 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable enough for me Deyyaz 22:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I've never heard of him. Is he a notable animator? If the article is to stay, it should really talk about why he is notable. At the moment its just a throw-away note about the number of pieces submitted to Newgrounds. What did he create of lasting significance? I suggest someone who knows about him expand the article while the AfD takes place. --Billpg 23:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. --Iustinus 21:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Its been 4 days with only one edit and no significant expansion. Sorry. --Billpg 21:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (Leave open for recreation.) --Billpg 21:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia has information on all sorts of obscure topics, why single this one out as not being notable enough?  I believe one of the reasons for having a public access encyclopedia is to be able to cover topics that would have never made it into a commercially available encyclopedia. --Elfer 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. No harm in keeping it. Matt Gies 07:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd change my vote to keep too if only someone would tell me what he's done to deserve my attention. I could make 100 entries to Newgrounds and commit suicide in an afternoon. If his work is notable then please tell me about it. (Which is why I added the note that the article should be open for re-creation.) --Billpg 10:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.