It's 2011 now, and there should be more info on Microsoft Office 15 than there was in 2010. Georgia guy (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There should be, and indeed there is, thanks to the fact that softpedia leaked some screenshots. Here and here are examples of the coverage they've generated. Unfortunately it seems entirely speculative to me, and I don't know whether there's enough that we can say about it to create an independent article. Personally, I think we ought to redirect this to Microsoft Office where we can have a one-paragraph summary about "future releases" (although I suggest proposing it on that article's talk page first).
I don't see why it's necessary to conduct a deletion review of a 10-month-old deletion, though?—S MarshallT/C 22:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your "I don't see why it's necessary" statement, what do you think the minimum amount of time should be?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think if (a) the deletion was more than six months ago, and (b) you have new sources or some other genuine reason to re-create the article, then you probably don't need a DRV.—S MarshallT/C 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed at WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 25, which indicates that recreation is allowed. I don't see anything in the log besides the original deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, DRV not needed to recreate an article whose title is not protected, assuming one plans on overcoming the deletion reason. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete the history if anything thinks it would be useful for an ongoing article. Probably easiest to userfy for User:Georgia guy. AT another venue, this could be automatically granted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why userfy?? It's not something from my imagination; it's real info. Georgia guy (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A big reason I think "Userfy" is because your original rationale is written as a hypothetical "there should be more info". If you don't have immediately everything required to make an article that overcomes the previous reasons for deletion, then it is better to create it in you userspace. When ready, just move it to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore It would have made more sense to check for sources before asking, but rather than speculate, I looked, & find there is enough to start an article: [1], [2] DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref tags don't work very well outside articles. Would you mind editing your comment, or agreeing someone else can edit it? Stifle (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userify and allow recreation - DGG above provided "significant new information has come to light since a deletion." However, no one, even the DRV nominator, is interested in developing the article and it would seem unjustified to restore an article just to overcome an AfD delete close without any interest beyond that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Start with a section at Microsoft Office and then split it out to its own article when enough information from reliable sources is available. If an editor wants to create a separate article, a userspace draft should be created and reviewed first. SnottyWongtalk 17:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Snottywong above. With speculative new products, much better to begin with a section than a separate article. --Bsherr (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, given the above, since I don't find anything wrong with the close of the AfD. --Bsherr (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is enough to support an article, that's enough of a reason. Nobody is denying that the present sources would have been enough to prevent deletion, & people will come. . The purpose of having a DRV is to prevent from using G4 to delete. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Userfy, as there is a big difference between suggesting there is enough for an article and actually writing one. - Aaron Brenneman (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
