I wish to undelete {{support}}, {{oppose}}, and {{neutralvote}} as they are quite useful in places other than major voting places (which include WP:RFA). I know that I might start another controversy, but I feel that they are important vote templates that could be used elsewhere. MathCool10Sign here!03:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions of this issue include this TFD, this TFD, this abbreviated TFD, this other abbreviated TFD, this DRV, and most recently this DRV. If you're going to bring this issue up yet again, I really think you need to explain why consensus at those myriad discussions is wrong, or why it has changed, or why it should change. If you can provide such a reason (that wasn't addressed previously), then I think this DRV can continue; otherwise I'd suggest a speedy close would be appropriate. (Disclaimer: I closed the last DRV in September, linked above.) Chick Bowen04:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tick easily shows one's support or oppose. It doesn't show a vote; it's just a "placeholder" showing that the reason is "support", "oppose", or "neutral". MathCool10Sign here!05:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the other discussions? In what way does your statement add anything newto the discussions there, has that belief not been put forward by participant's in the previous debates? If so (and it has) how does it address Chick's request "to explain why consensus at those myriad discussions is wrong", it is actually nothing more than disagreeing with the outcome, something DRV is specifically not for. Aside from that your comment seems to actually concede that is a vote, I'm not sure how "easily shows one's support or oppose." rather than the rationale behind that support or oppose is anything but a vote. I can see the only time that "easy" seeing support or oppose is useful is if you are merely tallying the numbers without considering the reasons (i.e. a vote) --81.104.39.44 (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone adapted the practice of adding {{Support}} or {{Oppose}} before their comments, people won't mention it as a vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathCool10 (talk • contribs)
I'm struggling here how does that address the question "explain why consensus at those myriad discussions is wrong", a bald assertion that it's different to whast the consensus view said is no sort of explanation, it's merely an attempt to dictate that you are right and they are wrong. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and list on WP:DEEPER. There's a very strong previous consensus that these templates are not considered appropriate here, and nothing seems to have changed. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted under any name. There's a very strong previous consensus not to use such templates, and the nominator offers no evidence that this consensus has changed. I would note that the nominator's assertion that "a tick easily shows one's support or oppose" should be placed in the context that many people oppose these specifically because they hate the visual effect of inline images. — Gavia immer (talk)14:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close/keep deleted Most other Wikimedia projects have no objection at all to these templates. There's a strong taboo against them here that I don't fully understand. But it seems extremely unlikely it will change in the foreseeable future. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion We use words to communicate not icons. Good grief, what's next SMS-text speech? Hey, I think I just had an idea for a new project! SpartazHumbug!15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The templates are unnecessary. Instead, go to your monobook.js and add importScript('User:Ais523/votesymbols.js'); to it. That will automatically parse the !votes on pages like this to show the proper symbols. Saves everyone a lot of trouble. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request a full review of the most recent closure of the Soggy biscuit deletion discussion as I feel there was a strong consensus to delete the article. (This is not a vote, people.) JBsupreme (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say that it was a no consensus rather than a keep result, but that doesn't change things. I'd like to hear from Juliancolton on the closure and from the nominator as to why he didn't discuss first. As a side point, this is likely to be an NSFW subject. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. There was no consensus to delete. No consensus defaults to keep, so there is no operative distinction between the words used to close the deletion discussion. There were also some disturbing irregularities of editing during the discussion, where valid references to the term appear to have been removed on spurious grounds. --TS10:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - numbers divided, policy firmly on the keep side, a sensible close. One might argue "no consensus", but that should be deprecated anyhow. WilyD14:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the closing administrator, I disagree that there was a "strong consensus to delete", but rather a consensus to keep. If AfD was a vote, the discussion would have been closed as no consensus. However, as AfD is not a vote, I based my closure on the strength of the arguments. In particular, many of the delete "votes" did not provide a sufficient rationale to determine their reasoning. The keep "votes", on the other hand, set fourth evidence as to why the article should be kept, including reliable references and citations to relevant policies. In addition, a no consensus close defaults to a keep, so I'm not even sure why this is at DRV. Cheers, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone14:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as either a keep or no consensus; there's definitely not an overbalance of delete comments - by numbers, there's 10 keeps, 11 deletes, and one transwiki; by argument, the keeps point out quite a lot of good evidence, as noted by Juliancolton, that there are enough reliable sources to affirm notability. I think the close was rational and proper. Tony Fox(arf!)17:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as Keep. I argued to Keep in the AfD and I agree with the closing admin's rationale to keep and the endorse comments here. Even counting heads would result in a no consensus close which defaults to keep anyway. Note that one editor changed from Neutral to Keep [1] during the progress of the AfD based on added information. Further, note the comment made in the AfD by the nominator of this DRV: If this doesn't get deleted this time around I will GLADLY re-list it in a few weeks in order to gain consensus.[2] and [3]. — Becksguy (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
History undeletion. It is currently a redirect and will not likely be restored anytime soon, but it would be nice to see the old version of this article. If there was a Google platform article during the AfD it could very well have been redirected instead of deleted. ~ PaulT+/C20:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few notes: the content at the time of the AfD was minimal--one sentence, basically. A longer (but highly speculative) article was later created in April 2006 and was deleted as, apparently, a G4 recreation, which it wasn't. Theoretically, it could be argued that that later article deserves its own AfD, but since it's three years old and everything it discusses has changed anyway (and was only rumor to begin with), I don't see the point. So history-only undeletion and leaving the redirect is probably reasonable, but I doubt this content is going to be welcome anywhere. Chick Bowen23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I write to ask to consider the re-written article User:Alfax/Livecare Support. Talking with DS and MZMcBride I tried to explain my point of view. RHaworth told me to write this request.
The article was removed because it was badly written.
In Wikipedia the article Comparison of remote desktop software compares different products and technologies related on Remote Desktop services.
Livecare Support is a product for Remote Desktop Software and I would like to put it in that list.
I started modifying the article of a competitor; so it's basically the same structure, and the main reason of the article is to describe the differences from Livecare Support and the other softwares.
Please consider my point of view regarding the article:
If this article is published, I think that Livecare Support has to be published, to complete the list of the softwares.
If Livecare Support can't be published, I think it's better to remove Comparison of remote desktop software and all the products detail are reported.
If Livecare Support is NOT published, it will be punished, and I don't understand the reason. If the article is published it's NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT because the Comparison of remote desktop software consider ALL the softwares and not one in particular.
My article is not written in "advertisement-like" style. I hope you consider it, as neutral as I tried to write it. If there is anything you want to modify, please let me know. Thanks. Alfax (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced from the proposed draft that the subject is at all notable. I'd prefer to see a few third-party sources written about Livecare Support before moving this back into the mainspace, at the very least. Also, I have added links for Livecare Support above. Cheers. lifebaka++16:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The article still lacks any third-party reliable sources. On top of that, the nominator's statement "If Livecare Support can't be published, I think it's better to remove Comparison of remote desktop software and all the products detail are reported" raises a huge big red flag for me. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Alfax seems to be overlooking minor criteria such as third party reviews and market share. And I agree with Stifle about their attitude. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so many points and so much wrong with the listing, but a couple of points (1) there is no right for anyone or anything to have an article on wikipedia, we use various guides to determine if they are suitable for articles. Not having an article is not "being punished", no more than a newspaper publishing an article on something is punishing similar things which it doesn't publish articles on, again there is no divine right to have an article here or anywhere else. (2) If the notabiity/reliable sources issues were met the article as it stands still needs work, the style of writing isn't particularly encyclopedic, a lot of it is general comment and opinion which could relate to any remote desktop software, various opinions are vaguely stated as fact and unreferenced. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
