Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softgarden


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Softgarden

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Blatant promotion without notability. G11 nomination got declined for some IMO obscure reasons. I also tagged this article for speedy deletion on dewiki and frwiki; there the cross-wiki spam was deleted in a matter of minutes, see de:Softgarden and fr:Softgarden. Icodense (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software,  and Germany.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG, coverage completely trivial/routine. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is notifying the author really "obscure reasons" if it's in the introduction of policy here and in the lead at the French Wikipedia ? It's also mentioned at the German Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a recommendation, not an obligation, so I don't see why this should be a valid reason to decline an otherwise justified speedy deletion request. In dewiki, it's definitely not even usual and I've also never encountered problems in enwiki until today without doing this. But yeah, seems to be really important here to some people to disrupt fighting cross-wiki spam, notifying about spam is more important than fighting spam in enwiki, I got the point. --Icodense (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. If there's a "strong consensus" for it, then notifying is the default, not the exception. We shouldn't be circumventing consensus without good reasons, and inconvenience is not one of them. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do believe the decline reason given is... less than ideal. Most likely, there would have been less drama if it were declined for not being sufficiently blatant to be a G11 by enwiki standards, which is also the case. Procedural notes aside, this is clearly not suitable, so delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to comment because of my interaction with the nominator, but I believe there's some confusion about my decline of the G11, and part of that confusion is my fault. I did not decline the G11 because the tagger failed to notify the creator. I declined it because I didn't think - and still don't - that it met the criterion. As says, it was "not...sufficiently blatant to be a G11". At the same time, I informed the nominator that they were required to notify the creator. Putting aside the policy argument about whether that notification is in fact required, I think the nominator - and probably others - interpreted my comments on the nominator's Talk page to mean that it was a procedural decline and could be remedied by retagging it, which the nominator did, and notifying the creator, which the nominator also did. I have in the past done procedural declines of tags, but I say that in my edit summary, which I did not do here. At the point that I saw the retag, I didn't realize how my comments could have been interpreted, and I thought the nominator was retagging after a straight decline, which is prohibited by policy (and by common sense), so I reverted without comment and posted again to the nominator's Talk page, meeting the same willful resistance as before. Sorry for the long-winded explanation. Y'all can go back to your voting.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sources seem to only consist of routine coverage, failing WP:NCORP. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.