The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. No reliable sources. Article seems promotional noq ( talk) 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC) reply
1) Nyttend nominated the Article for speady A7, which was wrong. 7:0 consensus in Deletion Review overruled A7. Naturally, Nyttend didn't apologize.
2) The Deletion Review was closed Jclemens before end of 7 days period. This also was wrong thing to do, because already Lankiveil ruled out (on m656 user talk page) that, despite consensus, the discussion will continue for 7 days, saying " the correct amount of time must be allowed to elapse before the page can be undeleted " - and overruling other editors' decisions withou a severe reason is not allowed.
3) The pour article now got saved from false A7, and was returned to its previous status, with the ruling by Schuhpuppe shortly before erroneous A7, saying " I've added some cleanup tags to the article, including one for notability. This is not a request for deletion ". At no time, the Civility-Award winning editor Noq is knocking down the existing cleanup request down (without allowing the required seven days for submitting a better version, as ruled out by Scuhpuppe)
Guys, I'm not suggesting that sub-standard articles should be allowed to stay. I'm just reminding you the guidelines "assume good faith" and "do not bite a novice".
m656 ( talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
4) It may look like a consensus is forming for deletion, but this is not really so. Not only did the editors SnottyWong and Lankiveil participate in A7 Deletion Review (so shey shouldn't participate in THIS review), but their opinion there was also used in nominating FolderPlay for afd. This is like double or even triple voting.
5) There was no majority supporting afd in the Delete Review. Only 3 out of 7 suggested afd. This is minority view, not majority. (The "prod", suggested by the Editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is something completely different).
6) The remaining two editors that suggest "deletion", actually checked not yet written article. The moment I started to write it, it was "speedy deleted" by Editor Nyttend. The not-yet-writeen article spent five days in deleted state, speedy undeleted two days before the end of 7 days, and here you go - at the same day the two Editors are voting for it to be deleted...
7) Do not you know that Wikipedia editing process is intended to be learned by making mistakes? When you see an unwritten article, you are supposed to frendly recommend the fellow writer to take it to User Space. The deletion is only there in order to deal with uncooperative writers. This is a nice opportunity to learn it.
8) Now article is written, and some support of notability is provided. Please ignore the opinions expressed before the artice was written.
9) There is a link to a blog posting by an independent expert in the field of media on mobile, which clearly describes the application as notable.
If the software is not notable, how it has 449,000 results in Google? Almost half million appearances, with many more in Eastern languages...
10) The presented notability reference is not the only one, please do not delete the article and allow it to continue to be written and additional references to be included in normal process of collaborative editing.
m656 ( talk) 12:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Whpq ( talk) 13:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
If blog review is not good enough - fine, it is not difficult to find a magazine article too. For example, Folder Play is discussed in PC Advisor Magazine (UK)
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=3228710.
m656 ( talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Wrong article. It is removed. m656 ( talk) 16:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The issue of notability now is only supported by the article by Review by Patrick Campbell in Nokia N96
http://nokian96.net/2009/07/15/nokia-n96-app-review-folderplay
( Other references only support particular points, like existence of support for a particular format, or existence of support for Chinese. They are not supposed to support notability. )
It was said by Whpq that "Blogs aren't reliable sources". It is only generally correct. For example, coverage in Techcrunch.com or Mashable.com is much better that any published magazine. There are thousands of references to FolderPlay in various unreliable blogs and forums. But Nokia N96 is different. It is like a magazine.
Check this link : http://nokian96.net/author/paddyc1988/ This is the collection of all articles by Patrick Campbell. You can press "next page". There are seventeen pages of articles. It's clear that he is an expert on mobile phones.
Nokia 96 is a strictly controlled publishing environment, more similar to a on-line magazine than to a blog. So it's a borderline notability case and there is no need to delete the article. FolderPlay is very far being hoplessly non-notable. In fact, a 100% proper article almost certainly does exist on the web, only it is difficult to find because of the abundance of downloading sites. Or maybe it is in Chinese, where it is notable for native Chinese support, or in one of languages of Continental Europe, where it is notable for letting people listen to opera on Symbian-running phones.
One should look at at the general practice of Editors *which often accept this level of prominence and notability). Consistency is among the most important components of overall quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not going to be a better Wikipedia if FolderPlay is deleted. For a software that appear at half million pages, the readers do expect to find a short answer to the question "What's that?", written in a objective, neutral tone.
Actually, Improvement of Wikipedia takes precedence over formal criteria. There even is a guidance against deleting valuable material that contributes to Wikipedia.
m656 ( talk) 18:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
m656 ( talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
arguments separately, and rejected then one by one. Yet I think they all add up to a reasonably well motivated (by the sum of small factors - when considered together).
m656 ( talk) 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. No reliable sources. Article seems promotional noq ( talk) 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC) reply
1) Nyttend nominated the Article for speady A7, which was wrong. 7:0 consensus in Deletion Review overruled A7. Naturally, Nyttend didn't apologize.
2) The Deletion Review was closed Jclemens before end of 7 days period. This also was wrong thing to do, because already Lankiveil ruled out (on m656 user talk page) that, despite consensus, the discussion will continue for 7 days, saying " the correct amount of time must be allowed to elapse before the page can be undeleted " - and overruling other editors' decisions withou a severe reason is not allowed.
3) The pour article now got saved from false A7, and was returned to its previous status, with the ruling by Schuhpuppe shortly before erroneous A7, saying " I've added some cleanup tags to the article, including one for notability. This is not a request for deletion ". At no time, the Civility-Award winning editor Noq is knocking down the existing cleanup request down (without allowing the required seven days for submitting a better version, as ruled out by Scuhpuppe)
Guys, I'm not suggesting that sub-standard articles should be allowed to stay. I'm just reminding you the guidelines "assume good faith" and "do not bite a novice".
m656 ( talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
4) It may look like a consensus is forming for deletion, but this is not really so. Not only did the editors SnottyWong and Lankiveil participate in A7 Deletion Review (so shey shouldn't participate in THIS review), but their opinion there was also used in nominating FolderPlay for afd. This is like double or even triple voting.
5) There was no majority supporting afd in the Delete Review. Only 3 out of 7 suggested afd. This is minority view, not majority. (The "prod", suggested by the Editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is something completely different).
6) The remaining two editors that suggest "deletion", actually checked not yet written article. The moment I started to write it, it was "speedy deleted" by Editor Nyttend. The not-yet-writeen article spent five days in deleted state, speedy undeleted two days before the end of 7 days, and here you go - at the same day the two Editors are voting for it to be deleted...
7) Do not you know that Wikipedia editing process is intended to be learned by making mistakes? When you see an unwritten article, you are supposed to frendly recommend the fellow writer to take it to User Space. The deletion is only there in order to deal with uncooperative writers. This is a nice opportunity to learn it.
8) Now article is written, and some support of notability is provided. Please ignore the opinions expressed before the artice was written.
9) There is a link to a blog posting by an independent expert in the field of media on mobile, which clearly describes the application as notable.
If the software is not notable, how it has 449,000 results in Google? Almost half million appearances, with many more in Eastern languages...
10) The presented notability reference is not the only one, please do not delete the article and allow it to continue to be written and additional references to be included in normal process of collaborative editing.
m656 ( talk) 12:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Whpq ( talk) 13:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
If blog review is not good enough - fine, it is not difficult to find a magazine article too. For example, Folder Play is discussed in PC Advisor Magazine (UK)
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=3228710.
m656 ( talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Wrong article. It is removed. m656 ( talk) 16:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The issue of notability now is only supported by the article by Review by Patrick Campbell in Nokia N96
http://nokian96.net/2009/07/15/nokia-n96-app-review-folderplay
( Other references only support particular points, like existence of support for a particular format, or existence of support for Chinese. They are not supposed to support notability. )
It was said by Whpq that "Blogs aren't reliable sources". It is only generally correct. For example, coverage in Techcrunch.com or Mashable.com is much better that any published magazine. There are thousands of references to FolderPlay in various unreliable blogs and forums. But Nokia N96 is different. It is like a magazine.
Check this link : http://nokian96.net/author/paddyc1988/ This is the collection of all articles by Patrick Campbell. You can press "next page". There are seventeen pages of articles. It's clear that he is an expert on mobile phones.
Nokia 96 is a strictly controlled publishing environment, more similar to a on-line magazine than to a blog. So it's a borderline notability case and there is no need to delete the article. FolderPlay is very far being hoplessly non-notable. In fact, a 100% proper article almost certainly does exist on the web, only it is difficult to find because of the abundance of downloading sites. Or maybe it is in Chinese, where it is notable for native Chinese support, or in one of languages of Continental Europe, where it is notable for letting people listen to opera on Symbian-running phones.
One should look at at the general practice of Editors *which often accept this level of prominence and notability). Consistency is among the most important components of overall quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not going to be a better Wikipedia if FolderPlay is deleted. For a software that appear at half million pages, the readers do expect to find a short answer to the question "What's that?", written in a objective, neutral tone.
Actually, Improvement of Wikipedia takes precedence over formal criteria. There even is a guidance against deleting valuable material that contributes to Wikipedia.
m656 ( talk) 18:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
m656 ( talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
arguments separately, and rejected then one by one. Yet I think they all add up to a reasonably well motivated (by the sum of small factors - when considered together).
m656 ( talk) 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply