Qatalog ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I have discussed the deletion with both the admin who deleted the page and the editor who placed the deletion requests. The admins response to asking them why they deleted the page was unhelpful to me. 'Only about 32000 results when googling "Qatalog" does not make it notable here'. This does not tell me anything. The page actually had some very good reliable independent sources with significant coverage and I considered it notable. It doesn't help anybody if an admin who deletes a page won't even give an decent helpful explanation for why they did so when asked. The editor who placed the deletion request was more helpful, at least in explaining why they found the page promotional. They also said that they would have no objection if I wished to request the page was put back to draft so that I may edit it to improve it. If it were put back to draft I would certainly also like to double check why the sources were not considered sufficient for notability, and would not attempt to republish it until that is properly addressed as well as making sure the article is in a non-promotional tone. Amirah talk

 Done undeleting the page and moved to Draft:Qatalog-- Jusjih ( talk) 01:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Bad G11. Would probably be deleted at WP:AfD. It has been draftified. Let the author move it back to mainspace if they think it is ready for WP:AfD. Read WP:NSOFTWARE. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy and send to AfD if anyone wants. WP:GHITS cuts both ways. Jclemens ( talk) 04:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Leave in Draft as restored. I haven't checked the references, but it looks very much like another corporate draft that I would decline with the template, {{ compsays}}. The references usually turn out either to be independent but not significant, or to look significant but not be independent (and so be of no value). I haven't declined it because it isn't submitted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list as desired. I think G11 wasn't crazy and I could probably endorse that. But the closing admin's comments on his talk page has nothing to do with G11. I think the topic is probably notable with [1] seeming to be the best source. That said, the creator's recent history of article creations strikes me as things that one could get paid to create and run a weird set of topics. @ AmirahBreen: could you address if you have any COI with respect to this company? Hobit ( talk) 17:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply

  No, I don't have a COI. Even if my recent topics seem weird to you, not everyone thinks the same. I have simply been branching out into new topic areas which I am not so familiar with and trying to progress with my understanding of new page criteria. It does not help simply to brand my editing as COI with no evidence of that. I created the page because I felt the topic was notable too, if I hadn't I wouldn't have created the page. If it is not notable then I need to understand why so as not to make the same mistake in the future. Articles should not be deleted under G11 if they are notable and can be rewritten, that is why I am contesting the deletion. Amirah talk 18:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC) reply