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 keep. Sandstein 08:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

WriterDuet

WriterDuet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly only passing mentions of the subject in notable sources, and write-ups in non-reliable sources. This article created by a WP:SPA seems to fall short of WP:CORP. A preliminary news search didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm not an admin, but this may fall under CSD G4. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment This is an original page, content is not a recreation of a previously deleted page. -- Denniswriter22 ( talk) 17:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Eh, without seeing deleted content neither you nor I can assert that. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: WriterDuet is a major competitor (third-largest) in the screenwriting software space, among other software that each have their own pages and are discussed on the Screenwriting software page, such as Final Draft, Celtx and Fade In which is much more minor. WriterDuet's presence in the niche screenwriting software space is also significant online; Knowledge of the space is incomplete and not reflective of the industry as represented online without the existence of a WriterDuet page. -- Denniswriter22 ( talk) 18:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Denniswriter22: Hi there, I see you're new, so, welcome! To clarify, just because other articles exist doesn't mean that this one should. Also, if I'm honest, the sourcing for those other articles isn't great, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for niche screenwriting software. It's an encyclopedia to record what has already been discussed, in depth, by reliable trusted sources. Hope this helps clear up some things, and again, welcome! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Drewmutt: Thanks! I meant that screenwriting software itself is a niche product -- and I agree, probably makes sense for the Screenwriting software page to stay and the rest to go (especially since a lot of them are deprecated). I'll turn my focus to that! -- Denniswriter22 ( talk) 18:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I moved this to mainspace from AfC. I did it because I believed it met criterion 1 of WP:NSOFTWARE, specifically "is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field", in this case screenwriting software. I based this on:

-13-paragraph feature on the software on The Wrap [1] in which its significance in China as a Mandarin-language program is examined

-3 substantive paragraphs on the software in a New York Times article [2] in which its gender assessment tool is explained within the context of screenplay gender bias

-2 paragraphs on the software in a Boston Globe article [3]

Further, the most cursory BEFORE search finds additional coverage of more than incidental or WP:ROUTINE character in The Times [4], The Independent [5], Tom's Guide [6], and PCMag [7] with incidental mentions in The Weekly Standard [8] and Daily Dot [9]. The original AfD discussion arrived at a correct conclusion as none of this material existed at that time and was all published after that AfD had closed. Obviously the situation has changed since then, however. While it seems possible-to-probable that the author has an undisclosed WP:COI, the AfC reviewing requirements specifically require reviewers to accept all "article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination" and do not envision us conducting a DIY SPI on editors who submit. Chetsford ( talk) 21:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh ( talk) 14:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I found the following [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. While we don't have significant coverage in and of these multiple sources, we do have enough coverage to lead me to think that this notable. The additional sources provided by Chetsford help to support that idea. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

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.