I would like to create this article, however it was deleted back in 2006 because it failed notability guidelines. However, I just discovered that Major League Baseball Advanced Media's contraversial blackout restrictions relies on this service according to the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps it's best to discuss whether or not this fact would merit notability, though it seems bizarre to unearth an article deleted 3 years ago. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion and allow re-creation. It's certainly possible that the company might have become more notable in the intervening three years since it was up for AfD. The version at the time of deletion was quite short and had no references other than the company's own web site, but I don't have a problem if the edit history gets restored. That said, there is no guarantee that the company will be considered notable now; you will probably need more sources to support a new article besides the Wall Street Journal article you cited. --Metropolitan90(talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation but do not restore the deleted page history, which contains nothing more than an AfD template and a copyright violation. The full text of the article was copied verbatim from an older version of this company page, and the text of that older version is available here (scroll to the bottom, where it says "About Quova, Inc."). –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may then be useful to recreate and redelete as a copyvio so it doesn't get accidentally resurrected in the future. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason you cannot just recreate the article. Thanks for asking here, but given that it was deleted such a long time ago, you shouldn't have any issue with a new good article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Krahu i shqiponjës – Recreation permitted from userfied version. Let me know if undeleting the history would be helpful. – Stifle (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
And if you are careful, you will notice that there are new sources and references of the most reliable. I don’t know what can be more reliable than the president of the Parliament of a country (Pjetër Arbnori}) and the National Library of a country?! There are photos there and documents (facsimile):
Some of the references and sources used on the draft article would not normally be permitted, for example, the blogs and yahoo groups. Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.
When I was doing my research for this DRV, I couldn't help noticing that the related articles, Shefki Hysa, Bilal Xhaferri and Jakup Mato, also contain references that do not conform to WP:RS, and I would suggest that these are also improved, as I doubt they would survive AfD.
I also note that you have received the same advice for the equivalent article on the German Wikipedia, which is here. The English Wikipedia's referencing standards are higher. (On de.wikipedia, you can write it if it's sourced or if other editors think it's true. On en.wikipedia you can only write what the sources say.)
I do not have the library to read the paper sources you cite, so I hope someone who does is able to participate in this DRV.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 14:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation since speedy deletion criterion G4 no longer applies. CSD G4 is for recreations of deleted pages which are "substantially identical to the deleted version" and if "changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". The userspace version presented by Xanxari en. is not "substantially identical" to the deleted version, which can be viewed here. Not only are there not insignificant differences in the text, but the addition of the references (even if they are problematic) is by itself a major change. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 21:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore The first deletion was valid, then the version that tried to address the lack of sources was deleted as a recreation multiple times. Since the first G4 was invalid, the x other ones are also not valid. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
