The decision is made based on counting votes! Those people who voted for deleting the article ignored references that establish notability (I think because of time, feelings and the language barrier where many of these references are in Arabic and other languages). The article topic cover three closely related projects (Supernova, Ring & PWCT) by the same team and from references that cover all of them together, they are one topic and no other Wikipedia article cover them. References for notability in printed journals, magazines & research papers :
Four articles in Youm7 by 3 different authors in 2011, 2016, 2018 provide significant coverage [1][2][3][4]
Three articles in 3 different printed magazines provide significant coverage [5][6][7]
Other references too [8][9][10]
Thanks!
Charmk (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. To the extent that I could force myself to slog through the AfD text, it's clear that the close was correct. There's nothing in the nomination which isn't a rehash of what's in the AfD, so this should be speedy closed as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. The nom is strongly urged to read WP:BLUDGEON. -- RoySmith(talk)13:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but it appears that the appellant is saying that the close should have been based on counting the number of words of text. Counting votes comes a little closer to strength of arguments than does counting words of text. Anyway, saying the same thing twenty times is only one argument. The close was valid, although it was made difficult by the wordiness of the appellant. The appellant should be cautioned that future arguments like this may result in XFD restrictions. (This comment is such a caution from one non-admin.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this AfD closed as delete a couple of days ago, the sole author has discovered a new pastime: listing computing-related articles at AfD. They've listed (at my count) 15 so far. For an editor who had previously shown zero interest at AfD. Also be careful around this editor, because if one happens to list one of their created articles at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWCT (software), their immediate response is to look through your creation history, find the first software-related article and to AfD that in clear retaliation: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tox (Python testing wrapper), and without even notifying the author. This is not acceptable editing behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just helping Wikipedia by discovering articles about non-notable topics and submitting them for deletion, I like this type of contribution and I think this is something useful to do because articles like Tox (Python testing wrapper) are about non-notable topics and doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia. Charmk (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
