Um Vichet ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

According to this, Vichet has since played for the Cambodian national football team, meaning he now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. I've taken the issue up with the deleting administrator, but they've been inactive since November. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 02:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Confirmed by this as well - I've restored the article. Giant Snowman 08:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Gernot Wagner ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

<REASON> was deleted in 2012 for the reason that it was a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, as well as lack of primary sources. Many more primary sources exist now (or could be cited). German page by now exists as well. Restore prior page and provide better sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.133.162 ( talk) 00:47, 17 March 2016‎ (UTC) reply

• The afd - especially since it was weak, with only one participant other than the nominator - is no barrier to a re-creation that explicitly overcomes its reasoning, which new sources would do. The ones at de:Gernot Wagner, though, don't: that article cites the publisher's page for one of his books, his personal homepage, http://www.universum.co.at/ (which doesn't mention him), and searches for his name at ft.com and nytimes.com (which either have zero results, or they're both paywalling even search results now; I'm not certain which). These are actually worse than the sources that were in the English Wikipedia article when it was deleted, so it shouldn't be restored on that basis. — Cryptic 01:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'm a NYT subscriber, so I'm able to search behind the paywall. I found a couple of items that mention him ( [1], [2]), an op-ed by him ( [3]), and a letter from him ( [4]). Hmmm, and another letter to the editor, about him [5]. The problem is, none of them are hard news stories. They're all op-eds, letters, blogs, and the like. Still, there are multiple sources, and it is the NY Times, so I think a reasonable notability argument can be made for allowing recreation, hopefully backed up by additional sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• The reason for deletion given is incorrect: it was never deleted based on an earlier discussion. If this is to be recreated--which is fine with me--please cite SECONDARY sources, and rewrite the article in a more objective form. Drmies ( talk) 01:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• The article was deleted first by proposed deletion and then following a deletion discussion, both in 2012. As this was over three years ago, there is nothing stopping a new page being created now except for the matter of sourcing. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation, provided that secondary sources are available. Primary sources are irreleveant in determining notability. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 06:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC). reply