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 no consensus. This one seems to be a hard decision as far as the conclusion that the editors have come to, but I, in any sense, do not see a consensus, and the original nominator has withdrawn the nomination. This discussion has been taking place since 12/18 and there hasn't been any discussion since the 28th. Time to close. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Software package. No evidence of having been mentioned in independent publications.Insufficient number of independent publications discussing BOUML to be able to expand this into an encyclopedic article. See below. Originally created by the author of the package (this version has already been deleted previously) and now apparently part of some external drama. —Ruud 16:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's an ongoing search for reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BOUML. Please do not close this AfD before a consensus have been reached there. Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please clarify, where is the discussion about the deletion, here or on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BOUML ?
I don't understand too the reason of the deletion request, do you ask for a deletion request of article each time you disagree with references placed inside ?
Furthermore a deletion request is already on going on the french version, what is the interest to do two times the same work at the same time ? Seems better to wait for the result of the first one and decide here, no ?
Best regards. Bruno pages (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I had not yet noticed the discussion at the discussion board regarding potential sources for this article. I believe this articles should likely be deleted nonetheless, so I have not retracted my proposal for deletion. Note that the English-language and French-language are nearly independent communities with slightly different ideas of which subjects are suitable for an encyclopedic article and which are not. The decision on the article being deleted or kept on the French-language Wikipedia has no direct influence on it being deleted or kept on the English-language Wikipedia and vice versa. Regard, —Ruud 22:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you didn't answer to the first question nor the second, this will not help next readers. It is really useless for you to say you hope the deletion of the articles, you asked for the deletion and in the associated discussion you consider all to be irrelevant. I wish you an happy witch hunt. Bruno pages (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about deletion takes place here.
I feel this article should be deleted, because there do not exist enough independent sources that would allow us to write an encyclopedic article. An encyclopedic article should be able to grow beyond something stating more than "Subject X exists."
ok, we progress, now please can you clarify these two other topics
about originally created by the author of the package (this version has already been deleted previously), the deletion request applies to the current article or the old article removed 3 years ago ? I don't understand why you speak about the deleted article, please can you explain ?
If I well understand, referring to the reason of the deletion request no evidence of having been mentioned in independent publications, the deletion of the article will be made if Bouml is not mentioned in independent publications. When I look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BOUML it is obvious Bouml is mentioned in a lot of independent publications, in this case why this deletion request is still open ?
Regards, Bruno pages (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure, any previous deletions or requests for deletions should be made aware to anyone wishing to participate in this discussion.
I do not feel these source provide enough information to write anything beyond "BOUML exists". Clearly, this is not enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia.
This deletion request is still open because seven days have not yet passed, see the guidelines. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately no progress this time ;-).
I still don't understand in what the history of the old article has an impact on the quality/content/utility/... of the current article made without reusing the material of the old one. Do you mean because the previous article I written as been deleted I am a kind of disease and I infected the current article ?
Perhaps my English is not good enough, but again the reason of the deletion speak about the fact Bouml is mentioned or not, and your second answer speak about something different.
Please don't take that as a personal attack, but I think this deletion request is absolutely unclear, it must be clarified. Note I don't know if the rules of wikipedia allow to modify the reasons of a deletion request or if you need to stop this one and do a new one.
Regards Bruno pages (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an article has previously been deleted and then subsequently recreated, then anyone participating in this discussion will probably want to see if the reasons for deleting still hold or not and take this into account when formulating their opinion and arguments.
Unlike many peoples first impression the Wikipedia is far from a bureaucracy, but rather informal. In this case I gave a reason for why I felt this article should be deleted. Other people might disagree with me and give their reasons for this, or they might believe the article should be deleted for completely different reasons. At the end (in a few days time) the whole discussion and all arguments made are evaluated together to reach a conclusion.
When I said "mentioned BOUML", I meant "gives a significant discussion of BOUML". This is what we need to be able to write an informative and neutral encyclopedic article on BOUML as opposed to merely recognizing its existence. Noone here is disputing that BOUML exists and is used, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of software products. There needs to be something interesting to tell to justify the existence of an article. —Ruud 16:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably definitively too stupid to understand the first dot, in this case why to not speak about more/all the deletions done on wikipedia and probably youngest that 3 years old ? The third dot says it is dangerous to trust on wikipedia articles : an expert knowing a domain writes an article/tool/etc, as a primary source he can't speak about that on wikipedia, a second people try to understand the subject but referring to a primary source again he can't do that on wikipedia, finally a third people try to understand what the second people tried to understand from the expert's production and places the result in wikipedia, brrrr, fasten your seatbelts ;-). Bruno pages (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary seems to be right. You and BOUML itself are primary sources. Independent secondary sources can be written about those. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia are tertiary sources, summarizing the secondary sources. The problem is that there seem to be too few secondary sources to summarize into an encyclopedic article. —Ruud 18:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain to me why User:Dereckson marked the delete request as WP:AUTO on my talk page talk ?
I don't think this article is autobiographical. Firstly it is about software package and not about a sentient being, secondly it was started
by an independent author User:af1n. - af1n—Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Lacks the independent reliable sources required to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please hold on! There are many sources, just give me more time to google them out! af1n 01:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Close With the papers af1n found, I think we should be able to write an article. —Ruud 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Articles for deletion, Lotje has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 03:51, 28 December 2010 (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.
