JC Gonzalez ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article was deleted because it was created by a banned user, but I think the subject of the article has a good claim to notability with in-depth coverage from multiple sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I brought this to requests for undeletion, and the admin who deleted it ( Berean Hunter) noted that the article had been previously deleted via AfD. I don't know what that article looked like, but the discussion makes me think that the coverage in the sources I've listed wasn't known to the participants in the discussion. The version that was just deleted had started as a translation of the Spanish version, and Berean Hunter noted that the same banned user had created that article in Spanish, but since the user wasn't banned at the time in Spanish, I don't know that that's relevant. -- irn ( talk) 15:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G5 doesn't apply if the article had substantial edits by people other than the banned user who created it. Irn had made a number of edits to this page to refactor and rewrite the content, and I think that collectively they qualify as substantial. The deleting admin also mentioned the fact that this was deleted at AfD two years ago. The sourcing for the AfDed version was a joke, it was entirely referenced to IMDB, Wikipedia and social media (aside from a couple of other pages which are blatantly not reliable sources). This version had a number of references to newspapers and magazines, which is a substantial improvement, even if it doesn't demonstrate notability. Therefore G4 wouldn't have applied either. Hut 8.5 11:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G4 applies as the content was substantially the similar: there was some pruning, etc. but the content of the biography was overall the same, and while there were some differences, the banned sock factor certainly weighs here. While it might not have been a clear cut G4 or G5 independently, combined, it is enough to make me say there is no way this should be restored. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn has different references so G4 does not apply and has substantial edits by a reputable editor so G5 does not apply. Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment- don't know if it's relevant, but there was some previous weirdness around this article. See this business here. Reyk _YO! 14:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn There are substantial edits by a non-banned user. Also the recreated article and references differ, so G4 does not apply either. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 02:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I've tempundeleted this for review. It's entirely possible (likely even) that this is promotional and/or SEO-fodder, but the current version of the article is different enough from the one that was originally deleted at AfD that I don't think WP:G4 can apply. Actually, if this was a serious SEO attempt, I'd think it would have a better photo than the slightly blurry street snapshot. Maybe WP:G5 applies, maybe not. Looking at the references in the current article, though, I think there's a pretty good chance this would survive AfD, which by itself pretty much eliminates any WP:CSD. If anybody thinks this doesn't meet WP:N, it can be discussed at AfD, but for now it should be restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment (Non-administrator comment): For what it's worth, I had this article on my watchlist for some reason I don't remember, so I queried Malcolmxl5 (the deleting admin at the 1st AfD) about it when I saw it had been recreated. That discussion can be seen at User talk:Malcolmxl5#JC Gonzalez, but basically Malcolmxl5 felt a G4 deletion wasn't in order and a new AfD probably would be needed. I'm not sure about the G5 stuff or as TonyBallioni states above a combination of G4 and G5. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Marchjuly: regarding your use of template:nacc, non-admins are totally welcome to participate in these discussions, with no particular need to identify themselves as such. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Understand. Just added it out of habit. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment My view, when Marchjuly and I discussed this, was that the new article was similar but not identical to that deleted at AfD. In particular, there were now 22 citations where there were only four in the article that went to AfD and I felt that this warranted reassessing the sources and taking this back to AfD if appropriate. As it happened, it was of course CSD G5 deleted as a creation of a sock. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply