Prince of Peas (talk·contribs) reposted this by copy-and-pasting it into mainspace from the sandbox Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present)(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where it was sent after AfD. No substantial content changes between the AFD version and the reposted version (order of men and women were switched, column format was changed). As this has been reposted without a new discussion on its existence, I've posted this DRV to discuss the existence of the article that was reposted without new AFD overturning the old one, since the content is the same. If this is kept, the edit history needs to be fixed, as it exists in the sandboxed version. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or send to AfD). The AFD that incubated the article was in 2007. Although the changes since then seem largely presentational it would be better to review the current state of the article (which to me does not seem to warrant deletion) rather than delve into the past. That would be a job for the talk page or at AFD. Certainly the history needs to be sorted for attribution. Thincat (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have performed a history merge to fix the copy-and-paste move; previously this was a GFDL violation. Prince of Peas, if you show up here, please don't move articles by copying and pasting, which breaks copyright. As for the question at hand, DRV is not necessary since the article is not currently deleted; I suggest closing this and speedily starting a new AfD nomination. Chick Bowen 00:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple options for that without copying over what's there now. The histories could be merged, and then the content cut-and-pasted into an archive, or the whole thing could be moved to a talk subpage and then linked from the main talk page. Chick Bowen 14:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few parallel versions by 65.94.76.126 regarding the copy/paste, but they could be discarded since it has been fixed. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took the easy way out and moved the old talk to an archive. Chick Bowen 18:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History merge, yes. The AfD is old and was weak, with explicit discussion of userfication and fixing. Allow return to mainspace, and allow listing at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, send to AfD if necessary - the AfD in question is very old and didn't deliver a particularly ringing consensus on whether the article was, in principle, appropriate. I see no issue allowing this recreation and encouraging it to be re-listed at AfD if there are concerns as to its suitability. ~ mazcatalk 13:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD or move back. The superficial formatting changes are irrelevant to the AfD discussion, so G4 would apply if it had been deleted. I'm not entirely conversant with WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, but I think that the AfD arguments are still relevant: the large number of members is better managed by categories, and the list would need a heavy rewrite to trim the excess entries and add context. The list of redlinks could be stored as a WikiProject subpage to identify missing articles. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an old AfD with a couple participants in which no arguments for deletion were presented. There's no need to enforce an ancient, bad decision. WilyD 09:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would meet our present standards, but anyone who wants to send it to AfD could do so. AfDs more than three years old can reasonably be reexamined. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
