Siri Rama ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Please consider the new information included below

Prologue - I am a newbie and I posted this on the talkpage: /info/en/?search=User_talk:SpacemanSpiff as it seemed like he was the administrator responsible. Going to the talkpages of the commenters when this page was first set up, resulted in pages where there was no way to enter a request. SpacemeanSpiff directed me to this page to post a deletion review. So here goes:

Hi! I am a newbie user (but a very grateful and longtime reader!) of Wikipedia, and found it difficult to even navigate the user pages/talk pages etc. of the administrators who seem to have made a decision on speedy deletion of this page. But I finally found a source that said that this was the place (i.e. your talk page) I should write to if I wanted to request a review of the page for Siri Rama. The reasons for the speedy deletion seem to be outlined here:

http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siri_Rama

It only recently came to my attention that someone who recently arranged a TedX talk by Dr Siri Rama created a Wikipedia page for her (which the organizer wrote based on promotional materials for Dr Siri that had been requested) and that this page for Dr Siri has since been deleted (speedily too!) because of the “self-promotional” nature of the write-up and what the administrators not-so-kindly refer to as “non-notability.” While it is the prerogative of the administrators to determine notability, it is a little unfair to Dr Siri that for no fault of hers, there is now some publicly available and uncharitable discussion on whether her contributions have been notable. It is certainly possible that her achievements do not add up to the high standards that are required for a Wikipedia entry, but it is also possible that the well-intentioned initial page creator did not write the page appropriately – that the entry was not written in a strictly biographical manner, but in a promotional manner, and did not include enough independent references. Indeed the talk on the deletion page by the four commenters (administrators?) does suggest exactly those as the reasons for speedy deletion.

I am not the original creator of the entry, but clearly I am not a disinterested party either, or else I would not be writing to you.

I would like to ask if • that discussion can be deleted from the Wikipedia pages, as otherwise, there is unnecessary harm potentially to her reputation (that some anonymous commenters have publicly assessed her many contributions as non-notable), for no fault of hers (since she did not instigate or create this page), OR, • could you reconsider a new page for her with better references and written in a more objective fashion. Please do consider the facts and sources below.

Dr Siri Rama is not “just” a dancer – she is a choreographer, dance scholar, dance teacher (who has graduated many students through to a debut performance in India and in Singapore), has performed worldwide, has collaborated with award-winning artistes from many different genres, and has been given many awards, including a lifetime achievement award. Recently, her dance institution celebrated its 35th anniversary. Now all of this could well be written up in a factual manner, backed up by independent sources, on the web and off-the-web (through publication references).

While one of your administrators disparages the Hindu newspaper as a source, you might note that it is the only national newspaper in India that has substantial coverage of Indian classical dance. Also the leading Indian dance site is Narthaki.com, and the leading Indian classical music and dance magazine is Sruti. Dr Siri Rama’s work has been covered in all three of these media vehicles (and in several city editions of the Hindu). She is also currently serving her third consecutive term as elected President of the Singapore chapter of the World Dance Alliance.

A few important (but not comprehensive list of) Web references to the dance, choreography and scholarship work of Dr Siri Rama (as Indian dance operates in what may be termed as the “informal sector,” not every detail is captured in easily-citeable web references – and some are in the regional press, which do not maintain very comprehensive websites).

• http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/fr/2005/08/19/stories/2005081901670200.htm Aug 2005, Delhi (review of a dance production in the Hindu the only Indian newspaper that reviews Indian classical music and dance)

• http://www.narthaki.com/info/intervw/intrvw60.html Jan 2004, Chennai (interview by the editor of the leading Indian classical dance website, Narthaki)

• http://www.natyakalaconference.com/news_letter_30th_dec.pdf, Dec 2009, Chennai (report about panel presentation at the leading annual Indian classical dance conference)

• http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/dance/experiments-with-expressions/article505966.ece July 2010, Chennai (interview by a Hindu journalist)

• http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/dance/dialogue-through-dance/article6267954.ece July 2014, Trivandrum (another interview by a Hindu journalist)

• http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/dance/siri-ramas-recent-dance-production-silk-roots-traces-the-route-of-the-material/article8253053.ece (feature in the Hindu about recent production) Feb, 2016, Chennai

• Siri Rama’s TedX talk: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Physics-and-Physicality-Dr-Siri;search%3Asiri%20rama Jul 2016, Mumbai

Other web references:

• /info/en/?search=Greg_Schiemer (collaborator’s site)

• http://www.sruti.com/download/content1/A%20Dancer's%20Diary%20-%20A%20dream%20community%20for%20artists%20(Reproduced%20from%20Sruti%20337).pdf October 2012, (self-report on a dance tour of Taiwan in Sruti, the leading Indian classical music and dance magazine)

• http://www.deccanherald.com/content/214394/twin-dancers-singapore.html December, 2011 (review of students’ performance in the Deccan Herald, Bengaluru)

• http://www.wda-ap.org/executive-board/ (verification of service as President, World Dance Alliance, Singapore)

• https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=s-ffCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=sanskrit+conference+siri+rama&source=bl&ots=AbR1qzJ3ys&sig=jzDkwgSAHhtmw1rLc0-DrDz_dac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG2vfdqMrOAhXJr48KHZyKAsEQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=sanskrit%20conference%20siri%20rama&f=false (chapter authored by Siri Rama in a book on Singapore dance)

• http://www.worldcat.org/title/sanskrit-in-asia-unity-in-diversity-an-international-conference-on-the-auspiciuos-golden-jubilee-birth-anniversary-of-hrh-princess-maha-chakri-sirindhorn-souvenir-and-abstract-book/oclc/945083295 (reference to presentation at a conference on Sanskrit, in Bangkok, 2005)

• http://en.krishna.deltoso.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/213_ACM_Conference_Programme_1718_July.pdf (reference to a presentation on the Ramayana in Singapore, 2010)

• http://iawm.org/stef/articles_html/hinkleturner_icmc_hongkong.html (reference to a dance performance set to computer music in Hong Kong, 1996)

Please let me know if you could either delete the discussion, or consider a new page for her, written with a more neutral tone and better referenced with independent sources (these above and others)

Amarapriya ( talk) 03:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. SpacemanSpiff's speedy delete was in order. The article that he deleted on 4 July was substantially equivalent to the article that was deleted as a result of the AfD process, so CSD G4 applies. I'm not convinced A7 or G11 apply. It was also tagged G5...more on that later.
  There is nothing inherent in the deletion process to prevent a new draft of the article at Draft:Siri Rama, especially if there are multiple new sources to be added. However, the draft should be reviewed by veteran editors before it goes into the main space.
  The most recent version of the article was also tagged G5, created by a sockpuppet of a blocked/banned user in violation of their block/ban. This DRV was opened by a brand new editor. This raises the possibility that the person requesting the DRV is also the blocked user—and a blocked user cannot edit at all, especially not to start a new draft article. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Alpharock ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closing administrator Nakon wrote, "The result was delete." However, I have found enough sources to make the page notable enough. XPanettaa ( talk) 19:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• I assume you mean you've found these sources after the AfD was over? If so, could you list them here? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Close of the AfD was in order. New sources discovered after the fact are a reason to create a new draft of the article, not to challenge the last AfD. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I think that @ Rizhopper: can help by making this article notable. But first, it needs to be restored to main space. XPanettaa ( talk) 13:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closing administrator wrote, "The result was no consensus. Numerically, we're at 22 delete to 12 keep, which is a substantial majority but not quite consensus. The arguments boil down to "it's reliably sourced" vs. "it's a synthesized fringe coatrack." These are all valid opinions within the range of editorial judgment usually applied to articles of this type, so I can't determine whose arguments ought to carry more weight." That an article is reliably sourced is not adequate to keep an article. It must also be notable. And a "substantial majority" is adequate for consensus. TFD ( talk) 17:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Closer's comment: The user requesting review mistakes a majority for consensus. When assessing consensus, both the number of opinions expressed and the strength of argument as determined by the opinions' basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines are taken into account. In this case, I found that I can't determine on the basis of policies and guidelines whose arguments are stronger, and that given this, the majority of "delete" opinions isn't so substantial as to amount to rough consensus by itself, given the relatively great number of defensible "keep" opinions. For these reasons, I maintain the view expressed in my closure.  Sandstein  17:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Why do you think that the existence of sources is a sufficient policy-based reason not to delete? TFD ( talk) 18:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• ( edit conflict) Relist [Full Disclosure: I voted to Keep] In general I think the closer is not far off the mark. We need to remember that AfDs are not resolved by vote counting but by the strength of the argument and both sides have made compelling cases citing policy and guidelines. That said, I think that rather than renominating the article as suggested in the closing statement let's relist it and see if we can gain a clearer consensus over the next week. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'm of the view that discussions should only be relisted if there have been relatively few contributions. This AfD was much more frequented than usual, and there's no indication that more discussion might result in a clearer consensus.  Sandstein  19:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse each presidential election season there area a few (or more) debates where perceived political leanings of the article in question seem to trump (ha, ha) our policies and dispassionate reasoning. I think Sandstein called this one correctly. Jclemens ( talk) 18:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Relist - The odd part of the close to me was a close as no consensus after heavy participation and no relistings, with an explicit suggestion: "Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate." I would expect to see that if there were little participation, or if something had changed significantly over the course of the AfD, but there was pretty steady discussion throughout the week. It's not a totally outside the box close, of course, but in this case I don't know why a quick renomination would lead to a more definitive outcome when compared to relisting (unless we're just hoping something changes in the interim?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I disagree with the nominator's basic point; not an adequate reason to keep is just a total misreading of how Wikipedian deletion processes work. What's needed is an adequate reason to delete. That particular onus is on the "delete" camp and they simply failed to convince the other participants. I also disagree with Rhododendrites' point about relisting, and I would like to applaud the closer for closing the debate after sufficient participation. People chickenheartedly relisting AfDs several times has become the norm on Wikipedia and it needs not to be.— S Marshall T/ C 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ S Marshall: Why "chickenheartedly"? We're not talking about several times, we're talking about one time, and suggesting a quick renomination despite no relistings and heavy participation. If any of those were different (if it had already been relisted, if there were no suggestion for a quick renomination, or if it saw little participation) I wouldn't have the position that I do. What is the benefit of ending one discussion without relisting only to start a new discussion? It's effectively a relisting, but makes everybody go through all the same arguments again and discounts those who have already participated but who will not see the renomination. What am I not seeing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The reason provided for the nomination, which for some reason Sandstein failed to notice in his summary, was lack of notability. That is certainly an adequate reason, because no articles should be created unless notability has been established. TFD ( talk) 19:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I know you contend that the conspiracy theories about the US election haven't attracted sufficient coverage in reliable sources, but you've had the chance to make that point to other editors and I'm afraid you simply haven't convinced very many of them. We won't re-hash that here. This is not AfD round 2.— S Marshall T/ C 19:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Indeed, this is deletion review where we do not re-hash the reasons for deletion but determine whether the closing administrator made a correct decision. I don't know what you mean that not very many editors were persuaded, apparently 22 out of 34 were and the closing administrator did not say that any of the 12 keepers challenged lack of notability, but instead relied on a "but it's sourced" argument. What is at issue here is whether or not the "but it's sourced" argument is a sufficient policy based reason for keeping. TFD ( talk) 20:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
        • But, you see, none of that holds much water. The fractions, 22/34 and 12/34, just aren't important. When you say something's not notable, as you did then, there's only one counter for someone who says "keep", which is to point out some reliable sources that have noted it. But when an editor does point out some sources, then the notability argument is duly countered.— S Marshall T/ C 21:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The actual question here is whether the close should have been no-consdnensus, or keep. I think an excellent case for keeping was made in the discussion. There are an umber of such theories. Some of them have been widely discussed, and as we get closer to the election, this will naturally increase. It is appropriate to have a general article to bring an umber of related smaller topics together. The arguments in this direction seem so obviously correct, and the ones for deletion a misuse of the notability standards, that I would have closed as keep, but I see the non-consnsus close as also defensible, in order to avoid the more difficult judgment of which side of the argument is rational. -- DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Some random comments. I haven't read the full AfD in enough detail to form a real endorse vs overturn opinion, but I do want to toss out a few thoughts.

1. I'm pretty far out on the chickenhearted end of the spectrum when it comes to relisting. I'll often put a discussion out there for another week hoping to get clarity, but to be honest, I find it rarely works. In this case, however, even I wouldn't have relisted it. There were so many people who commented, in great detail, with spirited debate, and analysis of specific sources, that I just don't see how anything useful could have come from another week.
2. Given the logic above about not relisting, I have to admit I'm baffled at the idea that starting a new debate immediately would be useful. If people couldn't agree this week, I don't see why they would agree next week. Nothing is going to change, except possibly a slight shuffling of who shows up for the debate.
3. Like I said, I haven't studied the AfD enough to form my own opinion of how I would have closed it, but from my quick reading, the NC close is not unreasonable. I'm loathe to make any statement which sounds like I'm in any way condoning or supporting nose-counting, but 22 to 12 isn't even quite 2:1. Unfortunately for whoever gets the jobs of closing, that's sort of on that ragged line where you can't just rely on numbers and have to use some mix of deep analysis, intuition, and experience. Sandstein is one of our most experienced closers, so I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to close calls like this.

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• endorse Some arguments for deletion were, mostly, fairly weak (not meeting the GNG? Really? At the least that needs an explanation). IMO deletion arguments are heading toward IAR arguments, and you need a much stronger numeric consensus for an IAR argument. Hobit ( talk) 04:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• endorse While I agree that the article should be deleted that matter is neither here no there in this discussion. There is no reasonable discussion as to why the consensus was interpreted incorrectly, majority is not consensus, consensus is not a vote, wikipedia is not a democracy. There is nothing wrong with Sanstein's close.

Quote from the close for TFD: "Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate." -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 06:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, and I have no problem with a close like this. We already relist too many AfDs, and I agree with Sandstein that a relist is generally not a good option for a discussion that's already had heavy participation. The closer is supposed to read and check strength of argument, not just count hands, so nothing wrong with that either. I see nothing to indicate this wasn't a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment All the endorse votes concentrate on whether the closing administrator was right to determine that a 22 to 12 vote was no consensus. But that is not the issue. It is whether the argument that it has sources is a sufficient reason for keeping. Does that mean, as in this case, that anyone is free to write an article on a topic that has no notability provided they give sources? If notability is not a requirement for articles, should we remove it as a policy? TFD ( talk) 20:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• I think your confused about how Wikipedia works. Notability is not and has never been a policy, although it's a requirement for articles. If there are reliable sources about the topic, then it's always notable, because that's the definition of notability on Wikipedia. "Sufficient reason for keeping" simply doesn't arise ---- the editor wanting the material to be deleted must show sufficient reason to delete. It's not for the "keep" side to prove their case.

  To put it very simply, once FourViolas had made this edit, the only way to get the article deleted would be to go through those sources one by one and show that they were either unreliable or not about the subject.— S Marshall T/ C 21:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• To me the question here is not whether this article meet notability criteria but whether or not that case was made in that deletion discussion. Respectfully your case seems to be rhetoric to me. To me you haven't presented any justification that Sandstein did not determine the consensus correctly. You are instead arguing that the article has no notability. Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't feel this is the forum for that. Here you need to show that the case for deletion was made and that there is a clear consensus for deletion is my understanding. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 22:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• I stand corrected. Notability is a guideline not a policy. It says, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia." Sandstein said that the argument the article lacked notability had been made, but thought the argument that it was sourced made up for that defect. Sources alone do not make a topic notable unless they are about the topic. None of the sources provided were about "conspiracy theories." Each source described an individual theory and none provided any connection between them. We can provide sources for articles such as Republican sex offenders, Democratic child molestors, liberal prostitutes, conservative bank robbers, etc. Each of them can be made up of sourced examples, yet the there are no sources for the topics themselves. Serialjoepsycho, the closing administrator did not say an argument for notability existed, just that he thought the "but it's sourced" was sufficient to make up for the lack of notability. TFD ( talk) 23:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• You are saying that the article should be deleted because it lacks notability. They are saying that there is no consensus. You are suggesting they incorrectly determined the consensus. You haven't made a case. This is a deletion review. If there is a clear consensus the point it out. Instead of doing that you are trying to re-argue the AFD. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 00:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• While I !voted for deletion on GNG grounds (There are zero sources supporting the topic of the page, just sources describing individual conspiracy theories, and the article is a coatrack for those conspiracy theories that don't have sources) none of that matters in a deletion review. I failed to convince enough people at the AfD, and so there was no consensus, the closer did a good job, and I simply have to accept WP:NOPONY. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. AfD proponents must convince the community that there are solid grounds to delete, and those arguments were ultimately countered by solid grounds to keep. Closer was diplomatic in assessing no consensus; others have pointed out that closing as keep would have been reasonable too. Closing as delete was simply not on the table. Contrary to TFD's opinion, notability of the contents is well established; whether one enjoys or laments the situation is another debate. — JFG ^talk 21:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I !voted for deletion, but there was no consensus for my preferred outcome, and the close was good and thoughtful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete per Deletion guidelines for administrators, specifically: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. I think BLP is applicable here as this article contains reckless speculation about living individuals and also believe this is especially relevant in an article in the contentious topic area of American Politics. At least 3 editors expressed concern about BLP violations.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Speaking as a person who !voted to deleted the page for exactly those reasons, I have to say that there was no consensus to delete among the editors who !voted, and the closing admin appears to have considered the above argument and rejected it, concluding that no policy was broken. Which is exactly what he/she was supposed to do. The above is simply not a valid reason to overturn. It is, however, a valid reason to post a request on the closer's talk page asking him/her to reconsider. I have done this twice and had good experiences both times; one time the close was overturned, and the other time the closer did not agree with my argument but I felt that my request to overturn was given proper consideration and thought. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I agree with Sandstein's decision and the above endorsements. Let's just move on from this. 2601:192:4602:CEE0:CD9B:57BA:A84D:21CA ( talk) 22:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The article is a mess, but that's largely a reflection of the real-world mess. The admin made a reasonable call, even if it wasn't the one I'd have made. Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I happen to think the article is quite poor and the topic is not suitable, but this is DRV so that doesn't matter. Looking at the arguments that were made, I think that this was well within the administrators's discretion. Also, I would like to wholeheartedly congratulate them on actually taking action on a discussion with 34 comments rather than just kicking the can down the road and relisting; AFD needs closers who will make difficult calls rather than just leaving the hard work for others. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC). reply

Sean Gannon (footballer) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While subject does not pass WP:NFOOTY (he is a full-time professional player but not playing in a fully professional league), I believe the significant coverage in national and international media that this player has received means that he meets the WP:GNG criteria. I realise the deletion debate was only recently but unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity to highlight numerous articles to the participants of the deletion debate which they otherwise seem to have missed and which I feel would have changed the outcome of the debate. See: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. They are just an example of some of the articles relating to Gannon showing broad coverage. In addition to the links, I feel it only fair to highlight that Gannon is a 3-time league winner of the top tier league in Ireland, has twice been named in the end-of-season Premier Division Team of the Year, was a member of the first ever Irish side to reach the group stage of European competition with Shamrock Rovers in 2011 (notable in itself), and will again play in the group stages of the Europa League this season with Dundalk. I would appreciate if this was reviewed for further discussion. -- IrishTennis ( talk) 13:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• relist Sports people are always tricky, but I'd claim the articles listed more than meet the GNG (very much focused on the person, his life, etc.), though some might argue about local coverage issues. The claim at the AfD was that he didn't meet the GNG, and given we now have evidence that may not be true, it's worth trying again. That said, I'm going to ping @ GiantSnowman: to get his take as he tends to have a pretty good feeling for how sports-related AfDs will tend to go and he !voted in the AfD. Hobit ( talk) 14:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - none of the coverage is significant, most of it is tabloid and arguably it's all related to one event. This is a semi-professional player who has got a little bit of limelight cos his little team have a little bit of success on a bigger stage - it happens every year in the FA Cup in England, where some builder or something who plays part-time scores a winning goal against a professional club and the some of the papers do a little profile. Everyone forgets about him a week later. No current notability, and certainly no lasting notability. Giant Snowman 18:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• You demonstrate an extremely dismissive attitude by belittling the significant achievements and success of this full-time professional player (he is not semi-professional) and his " little team". They are currently aiming to complete 3 league titles in-a-row, something which has not been achieved for over 30 years, and are only the second Irish team ever to be represented in the group stage of European competition. While you may regard this as a "little bit of success", thankfully the national media in Ireland don't and have given it great coverage in addition to increasing popularity of the league. It's also simply untrue to say that "everyone will forget about him a week later" given the coverage (in newspapers, radio interviews and television interviews on primetime shows (see [8])) and the scarcity with which an Irish team does indeed qualify for the group stage of European competition. There are certainly more than a handful of members of the team who will have lasting notability, including Gannon. Please could you inform me as to how "none of the coverage is significant"? Also what exactly is your issue with using an editorially-controlled and fact-checked tabloid article as a source for a sports subject (I can assure you these articles haven't been found in the showbiz or entertainment section)? I can't find anything relating to that in WP:GNG. Many thanks, -- IrishTennis ( talk) 19:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Any further clarification on this please? @ GiantSnowman:. Thanks, -- IrishTennis ( talk) 16:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• I've covered it all in my earlier comment. This is routine sports journalism in non-RS tabloid papers and not indicative of any reliability. Giant Snowman 16:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Hmm, I'm not sure you've really dealt with any of my points sorry. I'll paste the last 2 again here in case you've missed them: "Please could you inform me as to how "none of the coverage is significant"? Also what exactly is your issue with using an editorially-controlled and fact-checked tabloid article as a source for a sports subject?" I'm guessing the tabloid source you're referring to must be the Irish Sun, so I would draw your attention to the articles from The Herald, Irish Independent, The Examiner, and appearances on 98FM and RTÉ television. Do you accept that your comparison of a full-time professional player playing in the group stage of the Europa League with "some builder or something who plays part-time scores a winning goal against a professional club" is wide of the mark? -- IrishTennis ( talk) 16:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - So, looking at the arguments above, I am presuming IrishTennis is contesting this around point 3 - that significant new information has come to light since the AfD. As such, let's look at the sources presented:

1. 1 - a substantial article from a reliable source which deals with the player's career in detail. Useful in asserting GNG but insufficient on its own.
2. 2 - a substantial article from a reliable source, which does in part deal with the career of the player but quickly drifts off into quotes about Dundalk the club. To my mind adds useful content, but not something to build a GNG argument on.
3. 3 - Can't check this one where I am right now.
4. 4 - Although this is an interview with Gannon, the focus is on his club and their performance in Europe. It's not clear what of significance is there that could be used in an article about the player, not useful for GNG
5. 5 - The title speaks volumes, this is not an article on Gannon, but on Dundalk, not useful in establishing GNG for the player.
6. 6 - same as the previous source, this is about Dundalk, not Gannon.
7. 7 - same as the previous two sources, this is about Dundalk, not Gannon.

The important thing to take from this is that we mustn't confuse the notability of the achievements of a club with the notability of players involved in those achievements per WP:NOTINHERITED. Whilst it is clear that the club's achievements have led to some coverage of the player, it is also clear from what has been presented above that the player is a source used by Irish papers for opinion on his club, this does not make him notable as the slant of the articles and the quotes he provides are not about himself but his club.

Finally, I would observe that the contesting editor's rationale also falls into this trap, beginning by talking about the player and then moving on to asserting the player's notability by discussing the achievements of his club. I would like to see four or five other articles like number 1 above, which would ideally cover a time period outside of the European competition qualifying rounds of this season before I was convinced this player has received significant coverage as an individual sufficient to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 10:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'm not sure what was _in_ the article before. But #1, as a new source, is very strong and is a fine reason to see if, combined with older sources, we've met the GNG. Clearly the AfD was closed correctly, but the bar for a relist/recreation is if there is enough new material to be above to overcome a WP:CSD#G4. That seems to be pretty easily met. Hobit ( talk) 13:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree that source 1 is a decent one and would definitely support a recreation if a bit more could be found in addition. In general ROI league players are just not notable, but this guy is relatively close to GNG comparably. Fenix down ( talk) 13:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I'd argue 1, 2 and 3 together meet the GNG (3 is fairly short btw, but focused on the topic). Assuming there were sources in the article at deletion, at the least it's got a solid chance at AfD. Again, the call here is if it's enough to overcome G4, and given that there is a reasonable case the new sources meet the GNG, I think we're well past that, but YMMV. Hobit ( talk) 14:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for the helpful and constructive input, much appreciated. I take your point about mixing up the club's broader notability with the player's, although I suppose that can be difficult on occasion when the player has partly achieved notability through their significant achievements with the club. And I agree that not many League of Ireland players will meet WP:GNG , however I feel Gannon is one of the exceptions to the rule. I see the page has been recreated in the meantime? I am not sure if it's a restoration of a previous version, or a completely new article (in which case may be missing the references from before). Maybe you guys could check please? On the subject of a few additional sources, a quick search gave me these [9] and [10], but I can have a better look later on. Thanks, -- IrishTennis ( talk) 15:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The first source looks good to me from a GNG perspective, though I'm not familiar with the website - but have not reason to doubt its credibility. The second less so from a GNG perspective as it is partly routine transfer / contract talk, which generally doesn't count towards GNG and secondly because it veers off into a discussion of his hopes for Dundalk rather than himself, though it does have content that could be used in an article. I'd recommend you try to put something together in your userspace using the first three sources you mentioned earlier and the first one you just mentioned and see how it looks on its own, then build on it using the other sources that are more tangentially related to Gannon. I'm happy to restore the deleted article to your userspace if you want to use that as a starting point rather than go through recreating the infobox, lead and bits like that, but I would advise you to remove all the main prose and start from scratch to ensure you get the right focus on the notable sources. Let me know what you think. Fenix down ( talk) 16:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

No problem, thanks for the tips. Yeah if you restore it to my userspace that'd be great, thanks. Will get a chance to work on it in the next couple of days, cheers. -- IrishTennis ( talk) 16:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

You should find it restored here for you to work on. Fenix down ( talk) 16:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

DataCore Software ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, which is preferable to deletion. Article was being worked on by multiple Admins to get the article to NPOV. Please review this article and see if it was properly deleted. Tried working out the issue with the Administrator who deleted the article, who just says that the article was "promotional." All information in the article was supported by references. A new draft has already been submitted but seems that this process is backlogged. Would be much more efficient to all involved to have the article that was deleted fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58b:100:4b0b:a0fa:8e04:e366:7dc3 ( talk • contribs)

• Looks like the draft has been reviewed and declined. I'm afraid that admins have wide latitude to delete promotional material on sight and we don't restore advertisments. There are all kinds of reasons why Wikipedia is attractive to marketers, so we've had to develop ironclad defence mechanisms. If we didn't have them, then you'd never find anything useful in Wikipedia because it would be drowning in spam and hype.— S Marshall T/ C 07:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Plenty of (non-recent) deleted versions at DataCore Software Corporation, too. — Cryptic 08:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G11, list at AfD Endorse. I hate to say it (because the article really is horrible, and apparently there's a history of recreating this several times under different titles) but the Forbes reference is a pretty good source. There's a plausible argument that this could pass muster at AfD, if the current text was blown up and rewritten from scratch. That's enough to disqualify using the WP:CSD stick. To be fair, given the current text and the history, I really can't blame User:Seraphimblade for nuking this on sight, but it deserves a closer look. Tempundeleted for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Oh, I just noticed there's already a copy of this in draft space. That's good enough. It can be worked on (i.e. blown up) there and resubmitted for review when it's in better shape. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

BTW, another problem is the draft is apparently a copy-and-paste fork (and, I'm guessing there's more copies lurking in user space somewhere). Please, folks, don't do that. It is important for our licensing to be able to trace the history of every edit, and you can't do that when the history gets forked. If you want to continue to work on a deleted article as a draft, please contact an admin (perhaps the one who deleted it in the first place) and ask for it to be restored to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm tired of this crap. Given the conversation at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#DataCore Software (Part II: Resurrection), I'm now of the opinion that we should delete and salt both the mainspace and draft titles. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• The Draft copy was rejected. This article has been on Wikipedia since 2011. Surely there is an earlier version that it can be restored to rather than deleted. Or current version can be rewritten
• Potentially this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=DataCore_Software&diff=695381675&oldid=695381034 please review: has valid references: npov in my opinion. Valid references including Forbes article and NY Times. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/datacore-lands-30-million-from-vcs/?_r=1 http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwebster/2015/12/09/the-rebirth-of-parallel-io/#7e8959defa88 2601:58B:100:4B0B:A0FA:8E04:E366:7DC3 ( talk) 13:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

This guy clearly has no idea what he's talking about. Whole referenced article sounds like a copy-paste from a press release, and it links to SPC tests and playing with the numbers, something I believe resulted us all ending here. If somebody can pay to Forbes resident IT reviewer to act as a voice it doesn't mean he can go and buy WP. We should be neutral, and PR noise tolerant. NISMO1968 ( talk) 21:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Confirm deletion & work on the draft. I've edited the article recently to remove promotional / weekly sourced material (primary sources, industry awards, etc), ant the Draft:DataCore Software reflects the most recent version of the article. I believe it was correctly rejected as a draft as it was still non-neutral and overly promotional, without real depth. The main editor working on the article was a paid editor, with some back and forth going on re declaring COI: see COI & SPA (that's how I became aware of the article). In this situation, I believe the deletion was the right decision. K.e.coffman ( talk) 14:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• I can see both sides: the company is notable, but can see the article was considered promotional. I would lean to reinstate being better than a re-creation of a cut-n-paste draft. At least drop the litany of partners and "awards" which usually mean they bought a blog-writer lunch. Probably the most notable event was the SPC-1 benchmark result, which would need to be added with neutral language. Not in the draft at all. W Nowicki ( talk) 16:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• DELETE Sock puppets, bully behaviour, canvassing, endless reverts, and bringing in paid account in a desperate hope to make the pill sweeter. There's COI and there's lack of notability. If somebody is walking dead for years it doesn't mean his or her company worth WP page or whatever. NISMO1968 ( talk) 20:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

So now you are comparing this company to someone that is walking dead? Im very confused here. The company does have notability and has been around since 1998. If DataCore does not deserve a page on WP, then neither do other companies, such as Starwind. DataCore does have reliable sources and references. Please be respectful and stop bashing. Your time may be better spent working on the draft of the company and contributing to the value that wikipedia has to offer instead of telling others that they don't know what they are talking about. Apparently others also believe the page has notability as stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:100:4B0B:D46A:8A41:A2A4:99A6 ( talk) 02:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I have another case to report: IPv6 sock puppet & COI. Dully noted! NISMO1968 ( talk) 10:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hoping you plan on reporting yourself as well considering the only article you have ever had any interest in editing is DataCore. I wonder the reason for this? You should probably state which company you are working for 2601:58B:100:4B0B:D46A:8A41:A2A4:99A6 ( talk) 13:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• CONFIRM DELETION and move on. New rejected draft isn't much better. Every sentence is a claim. Initially I though I could help with edits if needed, but after being reverted so many times I don't think I should. APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 22:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Im going to agree with W Nowicki for Reinstate the article clearly has notability like other software companies on here. I was surprised to see the page deleted. Needs to be worked on for sure as it was promotional. Will work to add to the draft as well. JessicaH123 ( talk) 13:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

— JessicaH123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I wasn't aware this had been started, but endorse my deletion, such as it is. The article was clearly intended to be promotional, and the draft can be resubmitted if those issues can be fixed. Clearly an AfC reviewer has already agreed that the article was unacceptably promotional as it stood. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment – I agree with RoySmith's earlier comments; DataCore definitely is a notable company but after having my first draft rejected by SwisterTwister I don't see how the article can get back on the main space unless new sources with considerable coverage on the company pop up. There's a second draft that was recently submitted but the wording and references are pretty much the same. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I'm not going to wade into this one except to note that DataCore software (lower-case "s") exists. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Not anymore. — Cryptic 12:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment Having looked at this in the previous round on WP:COIN, I noted that there was some interesting technology there, but it wasn't unique to this company. See Talk:Storage_area_network#Hyperconverged_storage_area_networks.3F. The technology should be covered at Storage area network, with DataCore perhaps mentioned as one of the 13 or so vendors offering such a technology. So far, nobody has picked up the task at Storage area network. Anyone want to do that? As for DataCore, if it it stays, I'd suggest cutting it down to a stub of basic verifiable corporate info. John Nagle ( talk) 06:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Note: the article was undeleted to allow the contents to be reviewed for this DRV. I've temporarily protected it to prevent continued restoration of the article text instead of the DRV template. Text restoration is subject to a consensus in this DRV, so let's await the close. Even though protected, the article text remains visible for review purposes, by checking the article history tab. -- Euryalus ( talk) 09:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Ick. Probably a notable company. And I hate to not have coverage on notable topics just because there are COI editors floating around--it is not part of our inclusion guidelines and I worry about a false flag thing by a competing company. But A) many of the sources, look like more paid advertising. B) these people are being real jerks. I'm reasonably knowledgeable in this area and would be willing to write a very short stub that we could put under some form of protection. So stubify and protect would be my first choice. Endorse deletion for now as my second choice. The SPC-1 record holder should probably have an article though... Hobit ( talk) 12:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC) reply