TOPCAT (software) – Early close as decision is endorsed and userfication has taken place so requests to close, including by the nominator, have been made with no objections. SilkTork (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Allow userfication- The original AfD probably should have been closed as no consensus in the first place and if new sources have been published in the mean time I can definitely see this surviving another AfD. ReykYO! 11:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer: with three policy-based "delete" !votes and you the only "keep" (qualified as "reluctant") I think this was a rather clear "delete"... --Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how I interpreted Newslinger's and djmleighpark's comments, but whatever. I think it should be userfied now since new sources have turned up subsequently. ReykYO! 11:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userify I'm extremely skeptical that the sources in the draft, self-interested journal articles, and powerpoints on a couple university pages lend themselves to WP:GNG, but I see no harm in restoring this to user space for improvement. I also agree with RandyKitty that the close was spot on. SportingFlyerT·C 11:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I doubt it's notable, but if somebody says they have new sources and wants to try writing a better version, I can't see any reason to deny that. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I think the close was correct based on the deletion discussion. However, since the article subject was right on the edge of meeting WP:GNG, it does make sense to provide interested editors with the deleted version of the article when new sources emerge. — Newslingertalk 00:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD ran for two weeks. The closing admin made the only proper close based on the !votes. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The close was correct, but the refusal to userfy was grossly incompetent. WilyD 18:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree strongly with this. Userfication and draftization requests at WP:REFUND with any sort of rationale, even a token one, should be, and are, hardly ever declined. Certainly not with the generic "REFUND doesn't restore afd articles to mainspace" template. Refusal indicates either abuse or an overwhelming suspicion of it, either on the part of the page's previous editors (G10; G12) or the requesting one (some G11s; G4 where there's evidence that the userfication will be to circumvent deletion policy, not explicit improvement). —Cryptic 21:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Careful...I have had admins also refuse to allow drafts. One said they did not want it "lingering in draft space". I did not think it was "abuse". I also did not think it was "grossly incompetent" as was stated above. These are borderline WP:PAs against an admin interpreting local consensus correctly. Try to remember that we are all volunteers and WP:AGFLightburst (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and userfy - obviously the close is correct, but also obviously anything that's deleted that isn't problematic in content (mostly meaning, no copyright or attack page problems) can and should be userfied to anyone who wants a go at writing another draft. They're free to write such drafts without the previous versions, so userfying is only being ethical about authorship (and conversely, refusing to userfy is only refusing to be ethical about authorship). WilyD 18:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In this case if I had of asked closer first (I noted some desire to minimize wikipedia time) before making a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or not imposed a time limit on closer when I went back to closer I may have avoided DRV. Obviously not an issue here if this has been marked as soft delete but likely doesn't meet the criteria for that and that would have allowed restore direct to mainspace which is not what a closer would have wanted. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and userfy. I think the clsoe was marginal, but within reasonable range of discretion. But I do not see any justification for a refusal to refund as a user space draft (or draft space either). DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks all for support and help... Following the userfy I am happy for this to be closed, think I may need to get the talk page restored but that's not a matter for here. Welcome for a third party to do this. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
