- Atlantis Word Processor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The article was deleted under A7. I contacted the administrator who deleted the page, and sent him proofs that the subject is "credible and important": User_talk:JzG#Atlantis_Word_Processor_-_Undeletion_request. He replied only once by accusing me of COI without any proof, and refused to comment why he applied the A7 criteria. Thank you. Gillian2008 (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article appears to have previously survived AFD so I think that rules out A7 (unless I'm missing something). I can't see the article, though if it's full of the stuff Gillian2008 seems to think indicate it's notable it likely needs a rewrite. I don't think JzG's worry about COI are completely unfounded, it's unusual for an individual to be more or less exclusively interested in one fairly mundane topic over a 9 year or so period. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Surviving AfD doesn't necessarily insulate an article against an A7 deletion, especially when the AfD was nine years ago, sparsely attended, and raised real questions about article quality. No way it would be closed that way today. It seems reasonable to ask if the OP has a COI under the circumstances. Looking at the deleted article, it makes no assertion of importance or significance. A smattering of reviews from 2008-2009 doesn't signify. Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD lists those criteria which are apparently not exempt, but A7 isn't one of them. A7 itself states "not to articles about their books, albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), software, or other creative works." (my emphasis) so I'm really not seeing how you determine it doesn't exempt it from A7. It seems to me by letter of the policy it's exempt from A7 as software blanketly, but even if not it isn't one of the exemptions from having previously survived AFD. (FWIW I disagree on how convoluted CSD seems to have become, but either the consensus view of CSD is correct or it's not the consensus view...) --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, that's my mistake. I was looking at the A7 criteria and missed that section. That said, I don't think the AfD should be treated with much deference, for the reasons I've outlined. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we're in full-blown wikilawyer mode anyway, G11 looks more plausible for every version of the article I've looked at. (This line in particular sticks out at me:
But this is not all! The Atlantis Word Processor has unique features: ). Mindboggling that this was brought to AFD when it was instead of just speedying. —Cryptic 22:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't see how it's wikilawyering, the language of CSD doesn't seem to require any stretching, twisting or overwise tortured interpretation etc. it is pretty plain. FWIW G11 also isn't in the list of CSD which override a previous deletion discussion --81.108.53.238 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What was the supposed claim of notability? I didn't see one. It was a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore, relisting at afd optional'. First,, as pointed out, software is specifically exempt from A7. Second, it was determined as being notable by the community in a discussion, and no individual admin should overrule that on their own. And this was indeed on their own, as it was a single-handed deletion without a prior nomination, which, though technically legitimate, is almost never done for A7 nowadays--although it was not all that rare back in 2007. The reason why we normally do not act onour own is to prevent this sort of error. The claim for notability at the AfD was based upon the reviews. JzG, did you notice them? I have not checked if they are sufficiently substantial to meet our present standards, but that would take a new AfD to determine. The article is descriptive, not promotional, and I do not think it a G11. (If this holds, what is there to prevent me or any other admin from revisiting all 10 year old discussions, and deleting those that I think appropriate without relisting them appropriately--there were quite a few back then that I disagreed with and now I could hope to have y way--and so could all the few hundred other admins. To prevent this sort of chaos is why we have process.
- Mackensen, please reconsider your opinion here. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- history temporarily undeleted for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn speedy CSD criteria used isn't valid for an article that has survived AfD (per WP:CSD), so the speedy is wrong and no clear reason has been given that IAR needs to be applied here. Hobit (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I don't see the article as being overly promotional. And sources appear to likely meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion A7 and G11 are contrary to CSD policy (and so will be A11 when someone suggests that). A7 is quite outstandingly wrong as has been noted here. Please avoid invalid speedy deletions. I'd vote keep at AFD even bearing in mind possible COI issues. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
