Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FolderPlay


 * 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   delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

FolderPlay

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No indication of notability. No reliable sources. Article seems promotional noq (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, this article was recently undeleted as a result of this discussion at Deletion Review. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment The deletion review overturned a speedy delete with most commentators saying prod or afd it instead. noq (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is about a relatively feature-poor audio player for Nokia phones running the Symbian OS.  I looked and found nothing that looked like substantial coverage in a reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NSOFT. Yet another attempt at wikiadvertisement.   Snotty Wong   converse 15:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, having looked closely at this case, I do not believe that this software meets our notability criteria. This is not a judgement on the quality of the software itself, but merely a view that it doesn't yet have enough independent coverage to support a quality article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Comments:

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)

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)


 * Comments:
 * 1) The deletion review only addressed the issue of whether the application of the speedy deletion criteria was correct.  The consensus from the review was the article did not qualify under the speedy deletion criteria.  That is not an endorsement that that the article meets inclusion criteria.  It does mean that in order for the article to be deleted, it should go through a more thorough process which this AFD is.


 * 2) The timing of the closure of the deletion review is irrelevant to this AFD.  The outcome of the deletion review was to overturn the speedy deletion.  I'd point out that most editors in the review had doubts as to the article being sufficient to survive and AFD.


 * 3) My reading of the comment from Schuhpuppe is that he was assuring you that he wasn't nominating the article for deletion by applying article improvement tags to it.  The fact that he tagged it for notability would indicate that he had doubts as to whether the article would meet inclusion criteria.


 * 4) There is no prohibition from the editors you listed to participate in this AFD.  And the fact is, they both agreed that speedy deletion was inappropriate and that it should be overturned and brought here.  By the way, AFD is not a vote, so they aren't voting, and their participation here isn't doubel or triple voting.


 * 5) The outcome of the deletion was "Restored per consensus that A7 does not apply to this topic. Any editor may PROD or AfD the article at his or her discretion."  It's quite clear that noq has used his discretion to nominate this article for deletion.  This quite consistent with the outcome of teh deletion review.


 * 6) I don't understand how any editor can check an unwritten article.  This AFD did not appear until an article actually existed.  And once there is an article, it can be reviewed by any editor participating in an AFD.


 * 7) There is nothing stopping you from copying this article to a draft in your userspace right now.  Feel free to copy it to User:M656/Folderplay.


 * 8) I don't know about other editors but the article as it currently is written is what I am basing my opinion on.


 * 9) Blogs aren't reliable sources.  And counting google hits doesn't make something notable.  Coverage in reliable sources is what is needed, and there has not been any presented.  Non-english sources are acceptable so if you know of any please add them.


 * 10) If the presented sources are not the only ones, then you really should add these additional sources.  I've looked for them and found none.

-- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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 - That is a review for an MP3 player (hardware), and not a review of FolderPlay. Did you link to the right article? -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong article. It is removed. m656 (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - Can you please provide a link to the right article? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * Comment - So where is this coverage? I can't find it.  And despite your claim that magazine coverage is abundant, no evidence of magazine coverage has been produced. -- Whpq (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim magazine coverage is abundant, I do think the magazine coverage probably exists (given abundance of web presence). Meanwhile, the higher end blog coverage may suffice for temporarily not not deleting the article. Since there is no urgent problems with it, and there is a good chance that within say a month it will evolve into a perfect article (including perfectly proper demonstration of notability), why to delete?

m656 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The google coverage is not as vast as it seems at first sight. see this search which shows that if you follow the links it runs out at about 840 hits.  probably exists is not really positive enough to establish notability. The sources given in the article at the moment appear to be either blogs or forums which are not considered WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * comment I see no evidence that "coverage probably exists". A lot of google hits is not indicative of coverage in magazines.  As for why delete now, it's because the article doesn't meet notability requirements.  There is no prohibition against recreating the article in the future if coverage in reliable sources occurs to establish notability.  But we don't peer into the future. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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).
 * Whpk, you have considered multiple notability-supporting

m656 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.