Moot. So, per the conclusions at WT:DRV, because ordinary recreation is not actually a deletion review, I've listed this as an uncontested page move request at WP:RM. Once the page is moved, those who may object to it may tag it for G4 or AfD, whichever may be appropriate. An administrator should close this discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this deletion review request is to void G4. Because Stifle asked the community to review the article for suitability in the mainspace, you ought to have respected his wishes. WT:DRV did not reach the conclusion that articles presented at DRV are uncontested page move requests. Please do not do this again. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does Stifle say the 2008 G4 deletion was wrongly decided. This is a simple recreation. --Bsherr (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle deemed it necessary to ask the community to evaluate the article for suitability instead of simply recreating it. This is under his discretion. The page was salted because it was repeatedly recreated so it is not a "simple recreation". This deletion review prevents another speedy deletion per G4 and will lessen the chances of its being deleted at another AfD. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. This moving was not your fault. Would you move the article back to the userspace? If the page were to be nominated for AfD it would be deleted because none of the sources establish notability. A DRV discussion will give the creator more time to find sources to establish notability. If third-party reliable sources cannot be found at the moment, recreation will not be permitted and the draft will remain in Aborig's userspace. This will allow him/her to continue researching and working on it. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have advised Aborig on his/her talk page to find third-party reliable sources to add to the article so that it passes WP:SECONDARY which requires an article not be solely based on primary sources. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cunard and Anthony. As requested, I've added many third-party reliable sources such as Rotem, Katz, Fishman, Reuters and Trouw. They seem to establish notability but please tell me if you would like me to improve the page further. Aborig (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional work on the article. I am reviewing it right now. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per the sources added by Aborig (talk·contribs). The significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (e.g. this article from Reuters) demonstrates that Ghil'ad Zuckermann is notable per WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to mainspace. It now meets WP:AUTHOR, and the GNG, and almost certainly WP:PROF as well. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation as sources make a more than credible claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation and restore to mainspace - Plenty of source info in the article from which to conclude it meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
