Microsoft Office 15 – Deletion endorsed but the consensus is that there is enough sourcing emerging to permit the attempt of creating this again. (note that the article will still be subject to the usual deletion processes (G4, prod of AFD) if the sources provided don't cut the mustard). – SpartazHumbug! 03:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
MO2010 is finished. So I'm sure that at least some info about MO15 should be known. Georgia guy (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [2], [3], [4]. Looks like we are mostly in the "well-founded rumor" stage but growing quickly. Endorse close as the right reading of the AfD but I think we're close to being ready an article. Note the close was 2 months ago and lots of stuff has popped out recently. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just write a new article with the now available sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (redirect to Microsoft Office), criticism of the close not intended, but the redirect option was always viable, and with new sources arising it looks increasingly likely that the subject may become suitable for an article. To help editors with this question, and to be obvious with WP:copyrights compliance, the history should be available. Neutral as to whether the time for restoration is now, it could still be just rumour mongering. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a new article gets written using none of the original material (which would seem likely given the rumour status of it), then there is no issue with copyright compliance. --87.112.76.227 (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore with redirect to Microsoft Office with no prejudice in the future to spin out into its own article. It looks like sources are beginning to come in and support the speculation about the new MS Office version. –MuZemike 07:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I would suggest a protected redirect for a year. --B (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closing admin made the right call on this AfD, and does not deserve to have their decision overturned. If there truly are sources for MO15, then start a new article with them. If they're not good sources, the article will get deleted again. I also agree with B's suggestion of a protected redirect. SnottyWongexpress 15:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your two suggestions would seem to be contradictory. If it's protected no one can create it... Hobit (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow re-creation per the sources Hobit has found. If it's got a name that multiple RS'es (and Infoworld is a great RS for IT stuff) are using to discuss it, it's probably ready for a stub article. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and Recreate - If Windows 8 has an article, then why not Office v15? T3h 1337 b0y(talk • contribs • count) 02:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... Windows 8 has a redirect, not an article, and it's closer to release than Office 15. --B (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Clear consensus in Afd to delete, not redirect. closing admin claims "I think a redirect accomplishes the desired result which I would have hoped everyone would have agreed with" [5], which is simply a supervote and not consensus. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Closer honored consensus that the article content be removed, and drew a guideline supported conclusion that a simple redirect of a plausible search term would best serve the project. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin – The exact same result occurred (i.e. the content is still gone, albeit with a redirect it is still in the edit history), as I mentioned on my talk page already. I note that closing admins are encouraged (and have been for a while) to explain their closes whenever necessary, which I did. I also tried to look at the strength of arguments given, and I thought MichaelQSchmidt made a cogent argument for redirection at the least, not to mention it's common practice to redirect even subjects which are not considered notable. –MuZemike 02:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "Redirect" is not incompatible with "delete". The content is gone. There may be a debate about whether an admin should delete the page before redirecting, or protect the redirect, but that debate need not be had here. Closing admins should be applauded for looking for redirect opportunities where a page is deleted. I should add that a redirect is something that anyone can do at any time. Even if the article was deleted, another editor could have come along and created the redirect. Any objections to a redirection can be taken up at RfD.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per closing admin's logical, policy-based explanation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closing admin's explanation makes sense, fits policy and consensus - as stated above "Redirect" is not incompatible with "delete"." Dreadstar☥ 05:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This is a clear case of how AfD is "not a vote"™. Several users argued that the subject of the article was not notable and so the article should be deleted; MQS agrees that the subject is not (yet) notable but suggests a redirect since she is a plausible search term; the closing admin sees that there is a consensus that she is not notable but that a unrefuted, policy-based argument has been made to redirect; he closes as redirect, retaining the history since there is no compelling reason to delete such content absent BLP or copyvio conerns. In many cases redirection is a good alternative to outright deletion and should always be considered by the participants at AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, with congratulations to MuZemike, who's once again exceeded my expectations. What an excellent close.—S MarshallT/C 10:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Redirection is preferable to delete, and there is no evidence that the delete !voters considered redirection and no one argued against it for seven subsequent days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Eluchil404. Note specifically that all BLP content left accessible in article history by the redirect is appropriately sourced. SNOW time? Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse nothing is lost by the redirect, which the closing admin notes is a plausible search term. Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
