Filtrator ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

My arguments against speedy deletion were not considered.

The page Filtrator was speedily deleted by a decision of Sandstein.

I dispute the deletion for the following reasons:

• Not all my arguments against deletion were considered, even not all of them answered.
• The primary reason for deletion was the topic being considered not notable. I have shown the reasons why it should be considered notable (after the page was already deleted) and how consideration of its notability was wrong.
• I have shown several reasons why G11 does not apply, each of these reasons is enough to make G11 deletion invalid.

My arguments are scattered in:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Filtrator
• User_talk:VictorPorton#October_2019
• the deleted page Talk:Filtrator

Moreover, I insist that filtrators are a subject of notable academic study because:

• My journal article was cited at least 3 times by independent sources, these sources were cited by other sources, too.
• If the article is cited, it implies that it is studied.
• It is impossible to study my article without comprehending the term filtrator.
• It logically follows that the term filtrator is in use by several notable scholars. They (as well as other notable scholars) do use this term to understand their own works, because these works rely on an article that is impossible to read without understanding what are filtrators. A reference to this term is implied in their works, as otherwise, they would not cite my article at all. (It is like as if the topic "President" were considered not notable if there were only references to "Trump" and not to "President". When one says "Trump" he implies "President". If it were previously unknown that Trump is a President then Trump being notable and publication of the fact of that Trump is a President (a direct analogy of my publication claiming that filters are filtrators) in a notable, authoritative source (what my journal article definitely is) would automatically make the topic "President" notable, even if this word were not used anywhere else. In the same way they considered filtrators not notable because this very word was not used in independent sources.)

First please undelete the page Talk:Filtrator (and Talk:Algebraic_General_Topology._Volume_1, too, as it may contain related information) temporarily to be able to restore the arguments from the deleted page.

After this, we will be able to compile the list of all my arguments against the deletion. Please do not reject my request before the full list of my arguments is placed here and thoroughly discussed. Previously it was deleted before finishing considering or even answering all my counter-arguments, please don't repeat this error now.

VictorPorton ( talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ VictorPorton: This is in reply to your e-mail, which read: "Please carefully consider all arguments at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Filtrator I believe there are SEVERAL reasons why G11 does not apply in this case! Please undelete my page." It was not I who most recently deleted this article, but MusikAnimal, who deleted it as a test page (and probably properly so, because it only contained an undeletion request). You should address your concerns regarding speedy deletion to RHaworth, who a few minutes earlier deleted the article as promotional. This is a defensible decision, because the article was created by you and contained only one reference: a paper by you, to substantiate your claim of having come up with the concept of filtrators. Wikipedia is not a place for your self-promotion, see WP:COI, WP:NOTPROMO. I would endorse the speedy deletion, without prejudice to somebody else recreating the article. Sandstein 13:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse my deletion. Nothing has changed since the decision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filtrator in 2012 and at least the 2012 version did at least tell us a bit about the subject. The latest version has virtually no content. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Based on the arguments presented by VictorPorton here, and based upon his other deleted article ( Algebraic General Topology. Volume 1 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)), I agree with the decision by RHaworth that the page was promotional. It was not as grossly promotional as the AGT vol 1 article; however, it was devoid of independent references. Based also on the article talk page denials by VictorPorton that he has a conflict of interest in his own work, I keep coming back to the conclusion that Wikipedia is better without this article. — C.Fred ( talk) 14:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per prior AFD. Notability has still not been demonstrated and this is instead unilateral self-promotion on the part of the SPA editor. postdlf ( talk) 15:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Postdlf. Notability still hasn't been established and this is a clear (and self-admitted) attempt at self-promotion. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I can't see the article to confirm but I find Sandstein's, C.Fred's, and Postdlf's votes persuasive. SportingFlyer T· C 02:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The AfD could not have been closed any other way.

The AfD includes mentions of WP:COI, WP:NEO and WP:TOOSOON. These mean "use WP:AfC and draftspace. Also see WP:THREE for a topic that has been deleted. Many of words above VictorPorton ( talk · contribs) may seem interesting, but they are not on point for justification to re-create. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse for various reasons, including that the appeal uses the first person singular too much so that this appears to be a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia for self-publication. The appeal is very poorly written, and it isn't clear what is being appealed, which appears to be a speedy deletion by User:Sandstein, but there wasn't a speedy deletion by Sandstein. There was a close as Delete by Sandstein in 2012, and that can be appealed, but it doesn't read like that is what it is. There was a speedy deletion as G11 by User:RHaworth within the past day, and that can be appealed, but it doesn't read like that is what it is. I don't think that the appellant knows what they are requesting, except "I" and "my". The 2012 AFD was a reasonable closure. I can't read the recently speedily deleted page, but I have to assume that it was as promotional as this appeal. A Google search shows several meanings for "filtrator", which may be a type of fish, or a cleaner for a fish tank, or a cleaner for motor oil, but this appeal seems to have to do with abstract mathematics, and the Google search doesn't show anything abstract or mathematical. I concur with User:GPL93 and User:SportingFlyer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC) reply