User talk:LFaraone/Archive/2014/December

Thanks for deleting that page/or those edits from the History page of my User page. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byankno1 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear LFaraone user,

In a truly most respectful way, one would attempt to suggest that you may have possibly made at least one possible small mistake, when you demanded that there should exist NO articles on Wikipedia whatsoever about the software Joomdle.

The following is the archived discussion page which includes the reasons to request this deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joomdle

In general terms, the reasons refer to lack of notability... in short, one would understand that you consider this software to be NOT important enough so that other people may deserve to learn about it... how did you reach this conclusion? did you ever do some research about Joomdle?

In order to provide you with some background, it could be useful if you learn about the existence of a software named Joomla: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joomla

Besides, there exists another software named Moodle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moodle

Then, it may now be easier for you to understand "Joomdle", which is basically a software allowing for seamless integration between Joomla and Moodle, particularly providing one-single-login capabilities.

The Joomdle project keeps its own website where you (if at all interested) may learn more about it: http://www.joomdle.com/

It is also indicated amongst the list of plugins available for Joomla: http://extensions.joomla.org/extensions/living/education-a-culture/lms/10021

There is a number of videos available which explain how to integrate Joomla and Moodle using Joomdle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDvpPdQQh_Y

Although it may be quite easy to consider that the notability of this software is pretty self-evident, it may be comprehensible that you could have possibly made a mistake when you somehow decided that Wikipedia users should NOT be entitled to learn about the possibility of integrating Joomla and Moodle, because in your personal opinion this software is not "notable" enough...

It would be extremely elegant from you if, when eventually returning to Wikipedia, you might acknowledge the mistake, which you may also correct yourself by starting a new Joomdle wiki.

Thank you,

Lovecostarica

Lovecostarica (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lovecostarica:, the closing of an articles for deletion debate is performed by looking at the consensus of the discussion at the time, not on the basis of a supervote by the closing admin. That said, the article Joomdle consisted of one sentence that provided no context on what the software does, other than that it works with Joomla and Moodle. As the participants in that discussion identified, the article made no attempt to assert the subject's importance per the notability guidelines for software. If you believe a more substantive version of the article could be created, I encourage you to go through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, which can help guide you through creating a quality article. LFaraone 23:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I archived your withdrawn motion at

archive link For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain in full detail why you closed this AfD as "keep"? doktorb _words^deeds 22:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• I second that. There were several well-argued "delete" !votes from long-standing editors like SpinningSpark and Czar. Closing it "keep" without any further explanation is not a good idea, I think. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk and Randykitty: Perhaps it would be best clarified as weak keep. While I agree it was a close call, a number of contributors noted that the sourcing performed in the article edged it past the line of notability. LFaraone 00:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not asking you to change your close, just to explain it (and in the AfD itself, because that is our archive of past actions. And, yes, several participants claimed that "the sourcing performed in the article edged it past the line of notability". Several other participants disagreed with that. So I would appreciate if you could change your close and specify exactly why you closed this as keep (I must admit that if the above reasoning were a !vote, I would ignore it if I closed the discussion for being just vague waving...) Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 694th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you, Gerda.  . LFaraone 07:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

With a smile: did you see my civil extrapolation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)