Braves-Mets rivalry ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Notability, Recentism, Lack of Reliable Sources I think this page should be deleted. Most of the page is a reference to the Yankees and IMO there aren't enough reliable sources to support the questionable notability of this page to exist. Arnabdas ( talk) 20:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I think you meant to start a new AFD, not review the old one, which was closed as no consensus a couple years ago. postdlf ( talk) 14:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD per the nominator's request. When the closing admin starts a new AfD on behalf of Arnabdas, I ask him or her to provide a link in the DRV close to the fresh AfD nomination. Cunard ( talk) 18:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The Venus Project ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article was merged to Zeitgeist: Addendum in 2008 due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Venus Project. Since then, editors have recreated the article, but there has never been a DRV. I think a discussion should happen about whether this article, which is almost entirely sources to primary source documents in defiance of WP:GNG should exist as separate from the article into which it was merged. Editors at the article seem content to argue that because the discussion was 3 years ago, we should not keep it merged even though it doesn't appear that much has changed in the meantime. 69.86.225.27 ( talk) 23:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Looking at the AfD, and the original article, I think the better choice would have been to merge it to Jacque Fresco. It's Fresco's project; the film, was about the project. In any case, the article about the film needs a rewrite to remove promotionalism--describing the content is one thing, rewriting the contents as a exhortation to action is another. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The article did undergo a merge in 2010, but it was merged with Jacque Fresco, which was deemde more relevant. And since the Jacque Fresco article consisted mostly about text about the Venus Project, Jaque Fresco was in fact merge into The Venus Project. The article has also been vastly expanded and improved and is not the same article anymore, so the AfD is simply no longer valid. An AfD that results in a merge because the article is short and poor is self-evidently not valid for an expanded article. Sure, the article still is in need of much improvement, but that can't happen if it's deleted. (ps, the claim that "It does not appear to have changed much in the meantime" is patently false, showing that the IP in question hasn't even looked at the article before he deletes it. It's plain vandalism, nothing else.) -- OpenFuture ( talk) 04:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• The current version ceased to be a redirect in 2009, and this means that it's not appropriate for DRV to enforce a 2008 AfD in 2011. But if you wish to renominate the article at AfD, then I don't see any obstacle to this. Failing that you will need to seek talk page consensus.— S Marshall T/ C 07:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Valeria Solovieva ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article was deleted on 24 March 2010 because the subject in question did not met at the time at least one of the notability criteria found here: Wikipedia:TENNIS/N#Tennis. This player became notable in the mean while winning at least a 25K event at ITF level and also winning a Junior Grand Slam. I request this article to be placed into namespace. I tried to move it but encountered some ambiguous requests about sources. I solved the sources issues but nothing. Thank you ( Gabinho ^>:) 20:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)) reply

• Well, I've done a fair bit of reading around now and I must admit that I don't fully understand why Nathan2055 referred you to DRV. Personally I would have seen your submission to AfC as perfectly acceptable. Perhaps someone else looking at it with fresh eyes will be able to enlighten us.— S Marshall T/ C 08:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The article is here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Valeria_Solovieva. I request some administraor to move it to article namespace since the article is referenced and is about a notable tennis player. Thank you! ( Gabinho ^>:) 07:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)) reply

• Move to mainspace. Because Valeria Solovieva has participated at the ITF level (per this source), she passes the requirement at Wikipedia:TENNIS/N#Tennis. The AfC draft mainly has directory entries as sources and does not cite any third-party reliable sources. DRV has recently held that the general notability guideline supersedes subject-notability guidelines (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 19#Ellen Kennedy). Therefore, I ask the closing admin to move the draft to mainspace with no prejudice to a subsequent AfD discussion. I will not nominate the page for deletion as there is likely sufficient coverage in reliable sources that have yet to be added to the article. If, after a sufficient period of time, no third-party sources are added, another editor might decide to nominate it for deletion. Cunard ( talk) 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Because Jayjg ( talk · contribs) believes the article is not ready yet, I urge the closing admin to list the article at AfD if he or she deems that consensus is to move to mainspace. This will allow users to find more sources and assess whether there are sufficient sources to establish notability. If there are not enough sources to pass WP:GNG, it will allow users to determine whether Wikipedia:TENNIS/N#Tennis, a subject-notability guideline, should override the general notability guideline in this case or vice versa. I also request a stub of this article to only the first sentence:

  Valeria Alexandrovna Solovieva ( Russian: Валерия Александровна Соловьева; born November 3, 1992) is a professional Russian tennis player who has participated at the ITF level.

  Please remove the infobox and the other information per the allegation of the misrepresentation of sources and the BLP and V concerns Jayjg mentions below.

  If a new AfD is created, I further request that the closing admin link in the DRV close to the newly created AfD so that users can conveniently access the discussion from the DRV log. Cunard ( talk) 05:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Not ready yet, so still not being moved. I'm not sure what game User:Gabinho is playing here. He has been told multiple times, very clearly, that every claim made in this WP:BLP needs an inline citation, per WP:V and WP:CITE. Instead of doing this, he objects to having to source it, keeps trying to sneak it back into mainspace, and (here) pretends that he has "encountered some ambiguous requests about sources" and "solved the sources issues". There is nothing ambigious about "cite everything in this WP:BLP using inline citations". As a simple example, the article claims her "Career winnings" are $26,074 - but there's no citation for this. On top of that, some of the stuff that he was actually forced to cite (after multiple requests) does not actually match the sources cited. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• restore Meets SNG, probably meets WP:GNG. Sourcing seems acceptable given the nature of the article. Hobit ( talk) 22:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Cezar Lungu ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

He played 2 matches in Liga I this season for Astra Ploiesti ( http://www.liga1.ro/html/pagina_personala_jucator/Cezar_Lungu-657.html) so he is notable now. Ionutzmovie ( talk) 12:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation. Given that Cezar Lungu has played for Liga I, "the top division of the Romanian football league system", he is now notable. As a non-admin, I cannot see the deleted versions of Cezar Lungu. If the deleted reversions are unsourced or poorly sourced, I suggest userfication to User:Ionutzmovie/Cezar Lungu so that Ionutzmovie ( talk · contribs) may bring the article up to Wikipedia's verifiability and BLP standards. If the deleted reversions pass BLP, I ask for immediate restoration. Cunard ( talk) 18:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation exactly per Cunard who seems to have hit all relevant issues. Note: I'm taking it on faith that the cited source is reliable and says what is claimed (I only speak English). Hobit ( talk) 22:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Cubed³ ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

As of 14th March, 2011, Cubed3 Ltd ( http://www.cubed3.com) has become a registered company in the UK ( http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/432f1aff4a65cc353cc278e721cd4da9/compdetails). As of May 2011, Google Analytics tracking places average monthly readership at 200,000 uniques per month. Numerous exclusive interviews, event write-ups and news articles have been featured on other video game websites. If any further information is required, please let me know. Many thanks, Adam Riley [ Senior Editor :: Cubed3 ] Jesusraz ( talk) 09:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• The problem is that the subjects of articles have to demonstrate that they pass the notability guidelines. There is nothing stopping you from writing an article on this subject provided you include evidence that it does pass the notability guideline (which usually consists of references to significant coverage in third-party reliable sources). Being a registered company and getting 200,000 unique visitors a month doesn't demonstrate notability however. Getting content distributed through other media might be, depending on what that other medium is, but I doubt other video game websites will qualify. Hut 8.5 15:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, clear delete consensus at the AfD, and nominator hasn't presented any new sources to suggest that the subject has become notable in the meantime - frankie ( talk) 20:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for the information. I understand the need to prevent a Wikipedia page from becoming what would essentially be one big advertisement. I will do a bit of digging to find out some links. For reference, though, would being featured in a newspaper such as the Metro count as an example? ( http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/games/853363-street-fighter-maker-wants-capcom-vs-nintendo). Or even an Industry website such as Gamasutra ( http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/18657/Critical_Reception_Nintendos_Wii_Fit.php) Many thanks, Adam. Jesusraz ( talk)
    • Personally, I find those two links to be noteworthy because of the way that the refer to the site, indicating some sort of respectability, but more sources that cover and discuss it specifically are nevertheless required (see WP:WEB). Since the site is in its early days it is just natural that not many will exist, but your mileage may vary - frankie ( talk) 21:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The problem with both of those is that they are just mentions or references to things which have appeared on it. So they don't really show people are interested in cubed, they show they are interested in subject which cubed has covered, if you can see the difference. What's needed are source about cubed itself, actually be "discussing" cubed directly and in some level of detail. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 21:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Would Cubed3 being involved in the idea process of a game's development count? Here's something actually on Wikipedia already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pang%3A_Magical_Michael It was a case of a Japanese developer approaching Cubed3/Cubed³ for opinions on a new game, then incorporating those ideas into the final game. Personally I feel that's quite a massive achievement, and something not many other websites can claim to have been involved with, but if you need something else from me, please let me know. I'll try to dig out more if I can. I appreciate your patience, since you must get so many requests like this all the time! Jesusraz ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC). reply
      • I found another link verifying the Cubed3 link with the idea of PANG: Magical Michael by Japanese developer Mitchell Corporation, and how the CEO actually contacted Cubed3: http://gonintendo.com/?p=132778 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusraz ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Again that isn't covering cubed directly and in any level of detail it's passing mentions. Read the guidelines, you'll find they try and make notability more objective than subjective, so tend to require parties outside wikipedia editors like you and me determining that the subject is important and that is normally demonstrated by those parties (specifically parties which are reliable on such matters) deciding to provide coverage directly about the subject. As such the guidelines won't include very specific things like this. Though I'd read what DGG says below for a slightly different take on this. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 06:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• The usual argument for cases like this is that if reliable sources covering the industry refer to cubed's articles as good source material, then cubed is notable. I suppose this does follow from the spirit of WP:GNG, if not the letter. I think we've sometimes accepted such arguments if there are more than occasional mentions--it's well established that being used once as a source does not establish notability. Myself, I'm uncertain of actual notability, but I think there's enough above to justify re-creation and another AfD. The AfD is the better place for the argument. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I appreciate the consideration. I do not have the original Wikipedia page template for Cubed³ / Cubed3, but I can change the structure of it and include all information you feel relevant. Does the page need to be created again from scratch and then checked by yourselves, or will the original be re-instated so that it can be edited accordingly? Jesusraz ( talk) 10:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • What we often do in this situation is to restore the page as a subpage in your user space so you can fix it up, and then ask any of the regulars here or any admin or for that matter experienced user to check it and move it back into article space if its OK. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
      • That would be fantastic. Thank you very much! Will I receive some sort of email notification, or should I just keep checking back here? Jesusraz ( talk) 08:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Extremely sorry to be a bother, but I was wondering if the response from DGG was going to be followed up on. Will it be possible to restore the old Cubed³ page so that I can edit it so that moderators/admin/etc here can check it? If not, would someone please give me the permission to start a new page from scratch using information and data that hopefully justifies the notability of the website and gives sufficient reasoning for a page to exist here on Wikipedia, rather than it coming across as an advertisement? Many thanks for your time, Adam. Jesusraz ( talk) 11:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted for now but userfy to User:Jesusraz/Cubed³. The sources provided above are, as 82.19.4.7 notes, merely passing mentions. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources. A userfication will give Jesusraz the opportunity to find reliable sources and bring the userspace draft up to Wikipedia's verifiability and notability standards. Jesusraz, when you have finished working on the article, please bring it back to DRV or contact an established editor to review it. Cunard ( talk) 19:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for this, Cunard. Whenever this gets transferred to my userspace I will start to edit as required. As DGG stated, if I can show that the information that Cubed3/Cubed³ provides is sourced on a variety of other notable places, then hopefully the admin and editors here will consider keeping the page. Jesusraz ( talk) 12:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

KENI ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe I'm looking for a history-only undeletion, but correct me if I'm wrong. This page was marked for SD due to promotional spam, deleted, then recreated in a typical radio station stub format without the spam. It's my opinion that the end result could have been achieved without SD. More important to me, however; I responded to a talk page request for information of the radio station's history and provided a rather extensive outline of the station's history, only to see it deleted about an hour or two later by User:Reaper Eternal. As I read this user's talk page prior to leaving notice, I saw indications that the user has a habit of deleting pages marked as SD without first checking the talk page to see if any other users are doing anything or not. I left a message, and the reply showed unconcern that content useful to the article was deleted out of hand. The reason this is important to me should be simple: no, I do not have the time to rewrite all of what I wrote just because someone chose to ignore it before deleting it. BTW, useful references and file links were also found in the old article and are not in the new article. RadioKAOS ( talk) 03:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Could we see the history in question, please.— S Marshall T/ C 07:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Done. The new page is now at KENI/new. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 12:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• "As I read this user's talk page prior to leaving notice, I saw indications that the user has a habit of deleting pages marked as SD without first checking the talk page to see if any other users are doing anything or not." Where?
• You claimed to provide a large history of the station, but it was solely from your memory, which is not a reliable source. Additionally, nothing was done to address the problem of the spam. Finally, the tagger himself recreated the article in a non-promotional fashion. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 13:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Just a comment. Yes, what I posted was all from memory; that's why it was posted to the talk page and not to the article itself. AFAIK, that's what the talk page is for, to foster collaboration. Anything else amounts to you looking at me as if all the work involved is solely my responsibility. My livelihood is pretty far removed from this, and I like to eat and have a roof over my head. If I didn't have to worry about that, I would probably have plenty of time to do actual work on articles rather than take a shortcut by offering suggestions to others who may be interested. RadioKAOS ( talk) 17:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• I see spam-free versions in the article history that could have been restored. Reaper Eternal, why did you reject this option?— S Marshall T/ C 14:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Because for some reason I looked at the history (before the DRV tag) and thought that 69.178.1.4 ( talk · contribs) had created the article. I should have reverted to this version before the spam (and probable copyvio) was added. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 15:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Would you accept that in the circumstances, the history should, at least selectively, be restored?— S Marshall T/ C 16:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • ( edit conflict) I have no problem restoring the history of the old article under the new, if that is the request here. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I would think that once that's done, there would be no obstacle to this review being speedily closed.— S Marshall T/ C 16:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
        • I've merged them. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Thank you very much. I move for speedy closure.— S Marshall T/ C 21:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply