Star Sonata ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The page was speedily deleted under G4, which only applies if a page is a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion". From what I recall, at the time of the most recent AfD, the page lacked specific references to reliable independent sources. The page speedily deleted had been improved with additional references. The AfD stated that "all are free to recreate the article with sufficient sources" once better sources were unearthed. I tried to resolve the issue with the closing administrator, who indicated that my remedy was WP:DRV. Thanar ( talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Restore most recent version. I looked at the most recent edit and compared it to the version as it was during the last AfD in 2008. The most recent edit at least appeared to be significantly better sourced. If there are still problems with the article upon restoration, it can be sent to AfD and go through a full discussion again. But if the article is fine upon restoration, it doesn't need to be sent to AfD. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Restore as recommended by Metropolitan90. Warden ( talk) 07:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Restore and send to AFD speedy deleted as A7 on the 22 July then recreated on 25 July deleted under G4, which I think is stretch given the prior history a full discussion would have reasonable option, add to that 3 prior afd discussions over 5 years. My brief look at the last version of the article doesnt convince me its meets notability requirements but no harm in having another discussion and giving editors time to address notability beyond doubt. For the record I closed the original AFD in 2007. Gnan garra 08:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Could we have a temporary undeletion, please.— S Marshall T/ C 09:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Done. Eluchil404 ( talk) 10:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Thank you, Eluchil404. Overturn the speedy deletion as outwith the criteria, but immediately list at AfD so that a proper discussion can take place and we can delete it again in the correct and orderly way.— S Marshall T/ C 14:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Restore Surely the 22 July 2012 A7 speedy was declined and changed to a G4 speedy? So the G4 should relate back to the 26 May 2008 AfD [1] when the article was like this and so the G4 was claiming that the new version was "substantially identical". It is a good thing I am not an admin because I am completely unable to grasp that line of thought. And bearing in mind the AfD closer's advice to improve the article, the remark that "Cmon, it's been deleted twice at AfD", [2] hardly seems appropriate. Thincat ( talk) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AFD. This G4 is plainly wrong. T. Canens ( talk) 16:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment  The first AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata, as per WP:NOQUORUM "received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator" so under our current guidelines would have been a WP:SOFTDELETE if deleted at all.  Six months later, the community reviewed and as per unanimous !vote to overturn at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4, we get a procedural nomination at WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (2nd nomination) resulting in a unanimous keep result from six editors.  Five weeks pass and an editor nominates at WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (3rd nomination), with the statement, "the article has not been improved (citation wise) since the last AFD", an argument from WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:

  Delete I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. – My Way or the Highway, 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  Unscintillating ( talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment  The history of speedy deletes for this article deserves a separate comment.  To repeat, in AfD#2 there was no nominator !voting to delete and six editors !voted keep, a unanimous result.  Yet twice in the subsequent history of the deletion log, administrators have marked speedy delete with A7, which is "no indication of importance".  I understand that the Wikimedia Foundation requires administrators to unreasonably consume time in deleting worthless articles, but I don't see that this justifies unreasonably marked speedy deletes.  The history of G4 in this article is almost as incomprehensible.  The deletion of 2008-08-13 for G4 is a stretch at best, it appears to be a new article.  But the deletion of 2009-09-03 as G4 (with an "a7" thrown in as a comment) was clearly not for a "re-creation", this was a newly written article 14,500 bytes long.  The G4 currently being discussed is now the 3rd G4 for this article.  Unscintillating ( talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment  A contributing factor to this confusion seems to be that deletions are not recorded in the Revision History of articles.  Unscintillating ( talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• I would claim that this wiki page qualifies for A7. There's just no point to have an article for something so obscure. It's not scientific or historical in nature, so I'd claim the article falls more under general advertisement, and its existence is an abuse of Wikipedia. If you want the video game to have a web presence, then start a wiki specific to it. 80.186.49.244 ( talk) 21:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment The general criterion for whether or not to have an article is WP:Notability. Even if a topic is obscure, "obscure does not mean not notable" ( WP:OBSCURE). So there is a point to having articles on obscure topics. Finally, the nature of a topic (scientific, historical or otherwise) does not determine whether an article constitutes an advertisement. The main safeguard against advertising is maintaining a neutral point of view in the article ( WP:NPOV) which can be achieved regardless of the nature of the topic. Thanar ( talk) 22:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

While the topic is obscure, it is also not notable. It has not received enough attention to warrant the article existing. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The video game has not achieved this. Full stop. Furthermore, "the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent". The wiki article that has been deleted heavily relied on the subject's website for sourcing its content. Hence, I reach the conclusion that this article was created purely for advertising purposes and not to disseminate any information of note. 80.186.49.244 ( talk) 23:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

There are 7 references in the article version that was speedily deleted. Five of these (3 reviews and 2 developer interviews) are to 4 independent sources, namely G4TV.com, GameZone.com, tleaves.com, and onRPG.com. The 2 references to self-published sources were used only for player base statistics and appear to meet the requirements of WP:SELFSOURCE. Regardless of debate about the quality of the independent sources, I would not characterize the article as heavily relying on the subject's website for sourcing its content. Thanar ( talk) 02:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Restore obviously, AfD it again if someone desires, but the more pertinent question is "What is User:Malik Shabazz, who is an administrator, doing nominating an article for G4 when it clearly doesn't apply and he has the tools to know that?" I expect it's probably not documented that admins have to check ahead of time before tagging something G4, but since it's also logical to assume that an admin tagging a G4 already has looked at it, a failure to do so can lead to assumptions of applicability. Thus, we need at least one of a nominating admin and a deleting admin to NOT take shortcuts in investigating the applicability, or else this will happen again. Jclemens ( talk) 06:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G4 deletion - The AfDs weighed references included: frappr.com, gametunnel.com, GameZone.com, lyceumarchives.com, mmorpg.com, pc.gamezone.com, pc.ign.com, rappr.com, starsonata.com, strategyinformer.com, tgr.com. Admin Sandstein was clear in his close of Star Sonata (3rd AfD nomination) that the topic lacked sufficient references to substantial reliable third-party coverage. WP:G4 excludes pages only if the reason for the deletion no longer applies. Admin Y correctly exercised admin's discretion as part of the 25 July 2012 G4 deletion to conclude that the additional referenced material of g4tv.com, onrpg.com, tleaves.com, web.archive.org, and youtube.com in the G4 deleted article failed to overcome the reason for the deletion. Nothing in this DRV discussion has established otherwise. The above arguments based on conclusory opinion rather than fact should be discounted per Admin guideline re rough consensus. Since the reason for the deletion still applies, the G4 deletion should be upheld. To the DRV closer, please note, prior a AfD for this topic have been concerned with suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users. [3] -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• WP:G4 does not exclude pages "only if the reason for deletion no longer applies" as you claim. Rather, it lists 3 categories of pages which are excluded: "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." The page in question fits the first category, and thus is excluded from WP:G4. Thanar ( talk) 22:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• If someone recreates a page that is not substantially identical to the deleted version but the reason for the deletion still applies to the recreated page, enforcing the AfD consensus via speedy deleting under G4 makes sense. Otherwise, AfD consensus could easily be overcome. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 05:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Not so. G4 requires that a new article be identical and unimproved, not identical or unimproved. Jclemens ( talk) 06:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Even when an article is deleted at AfD, the article often undergoes changes during the AfD and the deleted version often is not substantially identical to the originally nominted version. Since the originally nominted version would not be substantially identical to the deleted version, an editor would need only restore the originally AfD nominted version to get around G4 in such a case, if what you say is true. That doesn't make any sense. Sufficiently identical and unimproved relate to the article text on its face as well as whether the reason for the deletion no longer applies. For the recreated Star Sonata article, Admin Y correctly exercised admin's discretion as part of the 25 July 2012 G4 deletion to conclude that the additional referenced material of g4tv.com, onrpg.com, tleaves.com, web.archive.org, and youtube.com in the G4 deleted article failed to overcome the reason for the deletion. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Restore and list Uzma's point is well taken, and I do think if the article had come back with exactly the same sources the G4 would likely be appropriate. But new sources should really be examined by the community. Hobit ( talk) 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment A search for more sources turned up another Gamezone article covering the original release. Also, Star Sonata was one of 3 role-playing games listed on Gamespy’s 101 Free PC Games of 2012. Gamezone and Gamespy have been established as reliable sources in the field of video gaming per past consensus. Thanar ( talk) 17:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and leave alone. It is just unimaginable that the above comments by Unscintillating would not boil an editor's blood. It seems that this article or subject has enemies and individuals who are adamant to have it deleted. Nothing new. However, it is the duty of DRV and senior editors to see this, to put their personal feelings of an article aside and to do all in their power to prevent any abuse of discretion. Thus, overturn and ban editing of this article only for those who keep re-nominating AfD. Turqoise 127 19:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Restore As Metropolitan90 mentioned, the most recent version definitely doesn't qualify for a G4 deletion, it has been substantially changed and updated since it was originally deleted. As for noteability this game has been covered by G4TV, Gamezone, Gamespy, OnRPGas well as numerous smaller gaming blogs and employs 9 people based on a press release as shown on Gamasutra . - FracOMac ( talk) 17:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC) reply