- Alexey Yanushevsky (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
more reliable sources have appeared since last deletion, [1] [2] [3] [4] Prisencolin (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Sigh. You do not appear to have read the directions for a deletion review. The purpose here is to challenge a previous deletion decision as flawed, after first discussing the matter with the admin who deleted it. (that would be me) Unless you intend to challenge the outcome of the deletion discussion had 48 months ago I believe this is moot. If your intention was to ask that the old version be restored or userfiedso you could improve it with your new sourcing, all you had to do was ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing stopping you from writing a new article at this title, if it improves on the AfDed version then it will not be deleted again without a new AfD. You don't need to come here to do this. If you want to use the old article as a starting point them I'm sure someone will userfy it for you. Hut 8.5 23:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation. A video game player trying to be passed as a WP:ATHLETE is unusual enough for this to be revisited every three or four years, sure. It passed AfD1 in 2008, failed AfD2 in 2011 with less participation and non-emphatically. Please try to be personable and friendly with Beeblebrox, he's a nice guy but chaffs with the impersonal bureaucracy that overtook the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), I don't understand your comment about "Please try to be personable and friendly with Beeblebrox". I don't see where Prisencolin was unpersonable or unfriendly with Beeblebrox. Prisencolin wanted the community's permission to recreate the article so he took it here. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the deletion review guidelines several times and I guess I still misudnerstood what to do, lol sorry about that. As I can imagine from seeing other competitive gaming articles, I can imagine that this article was pretty atrocious when I was AFDed. If it would get restored to my userspace under "/cypher" that would be great.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to apologize. I don't think you did anything wrong here.
Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says: "Deletion Review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". It is reasonable to ask the community for permission to recreate the article if you feel that restoration could be controversial. I did that for Archive.is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 1#Archive.is. For future reference, if you don't think a recreation will be controversial, then you could follow Beeblebrox's advice and just recreate the article with new sources and new content. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|