Herold Goulon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The player was non-notable at the time of deletion, however he now qualifies for an article per footballer notability criteria. A new article exists on said player already at Hérold Goulon, however a redirect cannot be made from the original link due to it being protected from creation. Simmo676 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy overturn. The deletion of this article was not in accordance with policy as it was deleted twice by PROD and a further time by CSD:G4. The second and third deletions were not in order. However, recreating pages at a different title to get around create-protection is very poor form and should not be done in future. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Habari (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

either Habari, in particular, is exempt from normal wikipedia policy or the afd was wrongly decided. if we are to believe the alleged consensus established in the afd, all non notable articles must be deleted simultaneously (regardless of how mammoth a task that would be) or none should be deleted, that unreliable sources can be cited as justification for keeping an article (even if they couldn't actually be cited in the article per WP:RS), and that some random award given away by sourceforge.net deserves its own wikipedia article because it's as notable as the Academy Awards (although i guess someone forgot to inform the tv executives of this since they don't air sourceforge.net awards on primetime tv). Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my keep closure as there was no other possible way of closing this discussion, where only the nominator recommended deletion. Furthermore, as the deletion discussion in question was closed over six months ago as a keep, it would seem more appropriate to renominate the article for deletion than to contest this closure. Suggest speedy close of this DRV with a recommendation to bring back to AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:NOTVOTE, the votes to keep should have been ignored as they didn't cite any relevant wikipedia policy. what's next? say i nominate an article for deletion and three people vote to keep, one because "I like it", another because "It's interesting", and the last one because "It doesn't do any harm". despite being thoroughly discredited reasons, i suppose the consensus would have to be keep, because "only the nominator recommended deletion?". why not just delete WP:NOTVOTE while you're at it? Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTVOTE is a guideline and is trumped by Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Meanwhile, the other three links you provided are to an essay which is supported by a very limited number of people. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTVOTE and Wikipedia:Deletion policy seem to reenforce each other. From Wikipedia:Deletion policy: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.. the reason i cited the essays that i did is to demonstrate that arguments that are without substance should not be considered. if you're going to just dismiss those out of hand, though, then what about an afd where the nominator is the only one who proposes deletion and all three other opinions are to keep. "WP:N is dumb!" one person might suggest, another might say "i hate you, Misterdiscreet, and propose keeping the article just because you nominated it!", and the final person might say "i'm watching boston public". none of the arguments are valid (just as the essays i linked to demonstrate invalid arguments) and yet you'd still close the afd suggesting the consensus was keep? Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see us agreeing on anything here, so I'm not going to continue a pointless discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • wikipedia policies are pretty black and white. either i'm right or i'm wrong. but instead of educating me as to what is what you just say you're not going to talk with me anymore about it. typical. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, it would almost certainly be more productive for you to renominate this for AFD. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really see the point when closing admins are going to ignore WP:NOTVOTE and just count votes. Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse not sure I would have argued for keeping in the AfD but the consensus is pretty clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse, but no objection to resending to AfD and suggest this be speedly closed per Stifle. I agree the arguments were weak at best, but it pretty clearly had to be closed as a keep. Hobit (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or relist—either way, the consensus was pretty clear. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 02:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • i agree - the consensus is very clear if you treat afd's as polls. just tally up the votes and the majority decission wins. of course, that's in violation of WP:NOTVOTE. but i guess that's why WP:SNOW exists, isn't it? so the closing admin can have a cop out excuse for keeping even if keeping is in clear violation of the rules. after all, what would you rather have? three people disagreeing with your decission or one person disagreeing with it? it's easier to defend yourself against one person than it is against three. really, the outcome of an afd is all about the numbers - not about the arguments. really, i don't even know why i bother justifying afds, given that. what i say doesn't matter so why should i say anything? just nominate it for deletion and let the voting begin! you might want to get WP:NOTVOTE deleted while you're at it. that and these latest comments by me. since i'm not casting a vote, what i have to say doesn't matter. right? so let's just delete it! yay!

given this new realisation of what consensus is all about, i am forced to wonder if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyMOD should be reconsidered the closing admin ignored a vote "as it [was] incomprehensible". comprehensibility and relevancy mattered for that admin but not for Habari! apparently not all admins got the memo that WP:NOTVOTE was to be disregarded! Misterdiscreet (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop making random and baseless accusations without justification, shall we? –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 13:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the suggestion that WP:NOTVOTE was ignored is not baseless as per my comments. either the policies were followed or they weren't. i quote policy and am told i'm wrong by people who can't be bothered to reciprocate and tell me what sections of policy mean i'm wrong.

but hey - why not just delete everything i say? obviously since wikipedia is just a poll the only thing my comments are doing are upsetting the peace. they're not doing any good and indeed they're causing strife so just delete them. show the world what wikipedia is all about: mob rule Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Proper procedure followed, close appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 07:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • really? how about you quote the policy that you believe makes this closure appropriate. from Wikipedia:Deletion policy: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.. since all the closing admin did here was a head count he violated Wikipedia:Deletion policy. disagree? how about you quote the wikipedia policy that says "wikipedia is a poll". i'm holding my breath in anticipation Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend speedy close due to the conduct of the nominator and the fact that it is preferable to renominate the article for AFD as the previous discussion was over half a year ago. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conduct of the nominator". text book ad hominem right there. and as i've said, renominating is pointless. sockpuppets will score a keep each time with the criterion this afd has established Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily; I can say that I would !vote delete in an AFD discussion (based on the article's current state). Stifle (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• sustain and renominate in 3 or 4 months is not improved. I think insisting on an overturn instead is a little pointy. The assumption in closing is that after discarding non-arguments, the consensus view will be the correct one, and that any neutral admin would agree. Thus there is in theory no difference between closing per the majority and closing per the strongest argument. But when there is a real dispute on what argument is relevant, the closer is not to decide between them , but close according to what most people in the discussion say. If he has a strong view on the matter, he should join the argument instead of closing, and try to affect consensus that way. Both I and stifle have closed keep when we personally would have preferred delete, and vice-versa. The keep arguments were not absurd or irrelevant: there can be a genuine dispute over the strength of the sources, which is often a matter of judgment--and there's no way to settle that except to see what the community thinks. If I wanted a place where my view of proper content would prevail, I'd start a blog or become an editor of some conventional publication. DGG (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • if the closer is not to decide between the two POVs when there's a real dispute, the question is raised - what qualifies as a real dispute? arguments not based on wikipedia policy are essentially non arguments yet in this afd for example they're given as much weight as arguments that are based on wikipedia policy. and why is that people who clearly have no understanding of wikipedia policy are effectively dictating what admins do? why are they even allowed to comment on policies they know nothing about in the first place? a discussion between admins (and others who have demonstrated the requisite knowledge) as to how to interpret wikipedia policy would be interesting and insightful. and whatever the outcome was i would likely respect it since the arguments presented therein would be sound. but a discussion between admins (and other knowledgeable people) and complete dolts... i can't respect an outcome that was achieved by people who seem to think that the article in question is exempt from WP:N.

for example, consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaura (2nd nomination). guy suggests Daily Vault is a reliable source and is then debunked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily Vault. the guy then suggests some review in a local publication is a reliable source and is again debunked - this time at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Reviews?. yet the article gets closed with no consensus. what's the point of the RS noticeboard if afd's don't consider it? what's the point of wikipedia policy if afd's ignore it? Misterdiscreet (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FUZE Meeting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The FUZE Meeting page was deleted by MBisanz for no particular reason? There are many other pages which fall into the same category. FUZE Meeting is merely a resource for web conferencing. Instead of simply deleting my article I would have appreciated a modification of my article.

~FabulosWorld — Preceding unsigned comment added by FabulosWorld (talk • contribs) 2009-03-23 16:59:09

• Weak endorse – This is not AFD round 2. Appropriate closure in regards of content. I would not, however, oppose a relist at AFD. I await a comment from the closing admin. MuZemike 17:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did try that, as you can see on MBisanz's talk page under the title "FUZE Meeting". But I didn't get any response. FabulosWorld (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)FabulosWorld FabulosWorld (talk)[reply]

Well according to the timestamps you did that about 5 minutes after listing it here, and that's only a couple of hours ago, so maybe they aren't available right now, remember everyone including administrators are volunteers comitting their free time to the project. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The normal process, as the instructions indicate, is that you contact the deleting admin before listing here. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin AFD was open 10 days, comments indicated delete, per WP:RELIST, relisting is discouraged a second time, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak argument if it had been made at the AFD IMO. MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to see the changes that were made in those 10 days or just the fact that it was open for 10 days enough to delete it. The article was pretty neutral at the end of 10 days. If certain parts seem worth deletion, feel free to do so but not the entire article. FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse deletion AFD was proper - even after the "improvement" it was advertising for a web service that still has not achieved significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Come up with the sources and you'll likely be able to recreate a neutral, non-advertversion of an article, but in the meantime - get notability first then create an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I woulrequest giving it a second chance. There is enough coverage including CNN Money, PCWorld and Reuters. You only have to look. Besides, the editors will only be able to improve it if live. You have to understand that the article was undergoing improvements.

Thanks FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 24 March(.

lpoint, brief list of places FUZE Meeting has got enough coverage: World Article CNN Article CNET Article I don't think its fair to delete an article just because something is new. FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• I change the above to a full endorse after the closing admin comment. In addition, overturning the deletion doesn't address the apparent advert tone the article took. With that said, I would permit recreation provided article can be rewritten in a neutral, encyclopedic tone; the notability will take care of itself. MuZemike 03:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as the deletion process was properly followed. I would have no objection to recreation as long as it addresses the issues raised at AFD and cites reliable sources. Indeed, if the creator would like the article userfied to work on some more, I'd be happy to do that too. However, please read WP:OWN. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks MuZeimke and Stifle. I think this is fair. I do not understand what you mean by userfied though. Do you mean letting everyone to edit the article. I have no problems with that since I understand that it's an open platform. However also please understand that it will take some time for the article to complete.

FabulosWorld (talk)

• Wikipedia:Userfication explains what "userfied" means. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be great. Thank you

FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse deletion FabulosWorld has been engaging in systematic promotion of this article and now CallWave, Inc., the commercial org., that owns this product, using external links and internal links on other WP articles. There is an apparent affiliation with this user and Callwave and its products. These articles lack unbiased, neutral perspective and are simply advertisements for this organization. Calltech (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting my statement above, the article CallWave (which is prior version of the article above) has been removed 3 times in the last few years as blatant advertisement. Calltech (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Calltech is biased Please don't point fingers without a basis. I have used FUZE Meeting product and like it. I have no affiliation with its parent company. In fact Calltech certainly seem to have some vested interest in the conference call/voip chat industry as evident from his talk page Calltech (talk. Within the last one year this user has tried to delete several articles related to conference call and voip chat. Why are you doing that CallTech? Just because a user is inexperienced in Wikipedia you shouldn't boss them. You also put a delete tag on CallWave Inc just because it was deleted in past. That's not a valid argument in my opinion. I would encourage other seasoned admins to have an unbiased look at CallTech's history and make a decision.

Thank you. FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• In past Calltech has tried to delete articles on FreeSWITCH and CallWeaver which are all conference call and voip chat related products. Certainly shows some bias there.

FabulosWorld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Please provide feedback: I have recreated the FUZE Meeting article following your guidelines. It's currently on my user page here: FUZE Meeting article on my user page Once I get your feedback and approval I would like to put it under the title FUZE Meeting.

Thank you very much for all the help. FabulosWorld (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)FabulosWorld (talk)[reply]

Mike Colin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Why did you delete my BIO of Mike Colin? There are numerous third party sources attainable from a simple Google search. I followed the style of other similar bio's, including citing the same sources used on their pages.

-Zeke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekeozuela (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you didn't. You cited only two sources, and one of them you flatly and explicitly contradicted with the article content that you wrote. Neither of them supported several parts of the article's content, such as the date of birth, for example. And the flat-out contradiction was on the subject of whether the person was alive or not. Uncle G (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Zekeozuela, it is not your bio. Nobody owns articles here. They can be (mercilessly) edited by others, provided it's within applicable policies and guidelines. MuZemike 18:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the editor contacted me (the deleting admin) via email. I responded with my reasons for deletion, provided a link to WP:BAND and offered to recreate the article in the user's namespace if he thought he could include information which meets those standards. I got no response on my email. My reasons for deletion were the self-publishing nature of his released work and the lack of evidence of notability in the cited articles. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Endorse deletion as CSD:A7 properly applied (the article did not indicate how the artist was significant or important). If the nominator (or anyone else) can indicate how Mr. Colin meets WP:NMG, I'd be happy to reconsider. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this article seems to be not only A7, but a poorly sourced BLP attack on Mr. Colin's former manager. If and when Mr. Colin ever does pass WP:BAND and WP:BIO, someone had better have a darn good source for the little bit about the former manager or leave it out. You can also leave out the "please contact..." section which seems to violate WP:CSD#G11. For those latter 2 reasons, I would suggest that no userfication be done as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - There's nothing to suggest the deletion process was not followed properly. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - per Juliancolton above. Jd027 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Access Statistics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Attempts for feedback from User:Juliancolton on why this page was deleted have been unsuccessful.

I would appreciate clarification of why this software article was deleted for notability. The software package has existed for over 12 years and is in wide use. References for its use in online published scientific papers were given from the National Academy of Sciences and Oxford University (for simple verification). There are many other references to it in other online scientific papers and countless others in printed form. If this doesn't address notability, please advise what would.

A separate objection was made that those scientific references didn't review the product. That should not be a reason to delete it because those citations were provided to address the question of notability. The presumption is those scientists reviewed and liked Total Access Statistics before they selected it. Some online reviews of the product were in the original page, which should address the concern that the product was reviewed in industry journals.

Please clarify why the citations were not sufficient to address the concerns, and if additional issues need to be addressed to restore the page. The original page was descriptive in nature and was not advertising. References to software used in published scientific work from such distinguished journals should be listed in Wikipedia. DataAnalyzer (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What was unclear about the explanation already given? What is unclear about the difference between something that is about the software and something that simply names it in passing? You cited sources to address notability. But they didn't in fact do so. You claim that you addressed verifiability. But you didn't in fact do that, either. For something to address verifiability, it has to actually document the subject in some way, and be usable in order to verify content. A source that isn't about the subject at hand and doesn't even contain any information at all on the subject at hand isn't providing any way to verify information on the subject at hand. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Nothing has been presented that shows that the deletion process was not correctly followed. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. 10 days of free web hosting at Wikipedia is sufficient. Afd was correctly closed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that software used to generate results in scientific journals published by the National Academy of Sciences, Oxford University, and the NIH (to name just a few) would confirm the product is more than use in passing. It should be considered notable under the definition of having reliable independent sources. When a scientist references a resource used in their research, it should be findable in Wikipedia. Verifability should be confirmed by the reference to the product in those online papers which you can easily check. For additional sources to verify the product in more detail, here are a some independent online reviews which you can check and were originally cited in the posting:
  • from a book, Alison Balter's Mastering Microsoft Office Access: http://my.safaribooksonline.com:80/0672325500/ch31lev1sec9
  • from Microsoft Magazine: http://mcpmag.com:80/reviews/products/article.asp?editorialsid=234
  • from Databased Advisor Magazine: http://my.advisor.com:80/doc/00011

What additional information do you need to verify this is a real product with substantial use that should be cited like the many other statistical analysis software products listed under Comparison of statistical packages? This is not some recent fly-by-night product. It's been around for 12 years. DataAnalyzer (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]