This article was nominated for deletion on 17 October 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

This article needs improvements. Any help will be appreciated.CSOWind (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the sources, only UK macuser one looks like it clearly helps with notability. The rest are either blogs (though some looks fairly professional and if it could be shown the authors were agreed to be experts in their fields they might count, I'd go to the reliable sources noticeboard [1]) or pretty clearly PR pieces that got republished ([2] is pretty plainly such a case as is [3]). The source I suggested was a good one in the AfD looks like a republished PR piece too. If you can find one more review that counts as a reliable source, I'd go back to the closing admin (or whoever did the userfication) and ask their blessing on the article before you move it back into mainspace. That's mainly to avoid a speedy deletion on the basis of being "largely recreated". It still might get back to AfD, but if it has their okay, it should avoid any speedy attempts. Hope that helps. Hobit (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot. I've added two more references. Number 1 and 9. They are about early versions but it points that the software is long enough on market and has some reputation.CSOWind (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally think you've got enough now (if just), but my bar for inclusion is generally lower than others. I'd suggest you wait for the DrV to end and then contact the closing admin asking him/her to review the article as it stands. If they think the sourcing is acceptable, you can then move it into mainspace. I'd not at all be surprised if it ends up at AfD again, but I think you've got enough good sources to survive now. But as noted, my bar is lower than most... Hobit (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your advices and support. It's good to feel that you aren't alone. :) CSOWind (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I remain of the opinion that this article is an advertisement, especially given the sole author's conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and moved it back into the mainspace. It looks like notability has now been firmly established with most of the content already cleaned up to make it sound more encyclopedic. MuZemike 17:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This page was deleted twice and was twice restored by administrators, because it's notability and neutrality. So I think that it meets all Wiki rules. And current speedy is just a persecution from Hu12, who deleted all other Conceptdraw articles, even approved by other admins and blocked my account and all accounts of my colleagues. CSOWind. 195.138.71.154 (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind map of mother is a creative person 41.114.209.27 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]