This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This page should not be speedily deleted because it was rewritten from scratch and thus does not qualify per WP:CSD#G4. Also, the sources used are not the same as those used in the prior versions of this article. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
They are the same sources that you presented in the Deletion Review and which were rejected after discussion, with the delete outcome of the AfD being endorsed. You have presented no new references in this article to counteract the outcome of the AfD. It is not the rewritten from scratch part that is an issue, it is addressing the reason for the deletion that is necessary. The article was deleted for lack of reliable sources discussing the subject. If no new sources are being presented, then the reason for the deletion is not being addressed and, thus, qualifies under G4. SilverserenC 09:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Look at what the G4 template says, "any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". This article doesn't address the reason: lack of reliable, sources discussing the subject in a substantial manner. SilverserenC 09:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Templates are not policy. As I just pointed out, according to WP:CSD#G4, this article doesn't qualify: "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version[.]" Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
But the template does more properly explain the requirements of having a truly "non-identical" article. Just changing the wording and the formatting and adding in some episode templates isn't changing the article if you aren't fixing the issue of sourcing, the issue for which the article was deleted (and endorsed at DRV) in the first place. SilverserenC 10:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
"[T]he sources used are not the same as those used in the prior versions of this article." Also, the template can't explain away that the criterion is to compare the current article to the deleted version, not to what was posted elsewhere (WP:AFD and WP:DRV in this case). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
That is just wikilawyering and you know it, taking the letter of the rules while completely violating the spirit of it. There is a reason why the template links to past AfDs. It's because they apply to the issue of whether this is a duplicate or not. You presented your sources at AfD and DRV and the other participants agreed that they are not enough for the article subject to be notable. Regardless of whether those specific references were currently in use in the article at the time, the fact that they were deemed not enough is completely relevant to whether this article version has been changed enough to stay. If necessary, I will take this to AfD, but it would be a waste of all of our time. SilverserenC 10:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:CSD criteria are meant to be followed strictly - otherwise, they would be far too broadly applied.
I would highly prefer this to be taken to WP:AFD again just to see how others justify the deletion of an article with multiple reliable sources, as opposed to the undeletion of an article without them (which was what the WP:DRV was actually about, contrary to your assertion). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
