Draft:Aqua Security (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article underwent speedy deletion due to G11. As noted in my user page I have a COI as an employee of Aqua Security. However, I believe the article I authored is written from a neutral point of view, it does not promote or advertise Aqua Security's services. It describes the company and its products, its integrations which are a key part of the solution, and establishes notability, for example mentioned by Gartner as a central container security product and recognized by the World Economic Forum as a technology pioneer. The content is based on numerous reputable sources including O'Reilly, InfoWorld, NetworkWorld and Microsoft. I should note that the article included more information - additional integrations, open source software authored by Aqua Security, and a company timeline, which I think are valid and non-promotional, and I'd like the editors to consider reinstating some or all of the deleted info. Hedgehog10 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse the deleted version was promotional, and if you can't see that I suspect you may be too close to the subject to be objective. The draft described the subject in promotional language ("Aqua protects applications from development to test and deployment", "The Aqua Container Security Platform aims to make container security easy") and most of the content consisted of the "popular container technologies" and "popular developer tools" supported by the subject, along with a list of awards they've received and nice sounding things they've done. Hut 8.5 18:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, that's basically too promotional. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh. At this point, the draft has been recreated in exactly the same state as the version I deleted under G11. I could G11 it again, but since we're already here at DRV, let's just waste a week of everybody's time on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think sometimes WP:G11 can be overdone and applied to articles that could be reduced to (acceptable) stubs. In this case I can't see how it could be rewritten to be acceptable. My only positive thought is that if someone could achieve this then neither WP:G11 nor WP:G4 would apply. Thincat (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- as noted above, this is an advertising brochure and probably could not be written in a non-promotional manner based on the available sources. Reyk _YO! 09:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration, I think I understand the concerns. I reduced the article and removed all language that seems to be promotional or advertorial. Is this better? Hedgehog10 13:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehog10 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse - To answer the question as to whether it is better, I would not tag the revised draft as G11 but would not accept it at AFC. I would note that it is written from the company's point of view without any significant third-party coverage and that it reads like a corporate information sheet (not containing puffery, but still a corporate fact sheet). Robert McClenon (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy list at MfD as a reasonably disputed G11. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me understand what "speedy list at MfD" means? Is there a decision to delete the article? Responding to Robert's comment, there are multiple third-party sources cited on the page such as NetworkWorld, Container Journal, O'Reilly, Red Herring and eWeek, so it's inaccurate to say there is no third party coverage. Should I add more of what these publications say about Aqua to make it more balanced? I'd really appreciate your help in improving this article so it is a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. I think I've established that the subject itself has notability and I'm willing to work with you to improve the content. Hedgehog10 09:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehog10 (talk • contribs)

It meant that I would prefer the substantive discussion to delete it to be at MfD. However, consensus is already abundantly clear. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concord Orchestra (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have got more information to add to the article and more sources. Dariakupila (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as an accurate determination of policy-based consensus at the discussion. If, Dariakupila, you have some independent reliable sources with significant coverage it will be possible to recreate this, but the only way that you're likely to get your desired outcome would be to list the sources here. The ticket sellers, videos and images that you linked in the AFD discussion don't meet any of the requirements of independent, reliable, and significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phil Bridger. Thank you for your reply. Here is the list of the sources from the third party.

• www.antyradio.pl (In Polish)
• www.ecodibergamo.it (News website in Italian)
• www.bergamopost.it (News website in Italian)
• businesspskov.ru (News website in Russian)
• utro.ru (News website in Russian)

I have taken the liberty of reformatting the above list for readability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also a couple of questions. The videos from the concerts of Concord Orchestra with the artists mentioned in the article - Michel Legrand or Ken Hensley for example - should I add them as well? There are also the interview videos and reports on TV (Russia) - should I list them?

I have mentioned the ticket sellers, videos and images in the AFD discussion to demonstrate that the orchestra is active. There is also an article about Concord Orchestra in Russian and plans to translate it in Italian. If it helps. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closure. The proponent is a single-purpose account; do they have a conflict of interest? Any review of a re-created article or a draft should compare the draft or new article to the deleted article. If they are substantially the same, it is a G4 or Reject of the draft with possible SALTing. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Strongly advise newcomer editors to get experience by adding content to existing articles before attempting to write new articles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on Wikipedia - Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Quoting from there: "Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out." I have listed the facts about the orchestra in a neutral tone, people are looking it up - why am I doing wrong? Also I have seen articles in English with the sources in foreign languages - is it not allowed? And why no-one is answering my questions? Dariakupila (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. If Dariakupila wants to work on this, I see no reason to not let them. That's what draft is for. This started out in draftspace. It is unfortunate that it got promoted to mainspace before it was ready, but I can't really blame User:Kvng; it passes the draft promotion decision tree. AfC is meant to be a rough filter, and errs on the side of being too permissive. As for sources in foreign languages, yes, they are allowed, per WP:NONENG. But, you need to recognize that most reviewers here only read English, so reviewing articles which rely on non-English sources can be complicated. The automated translation services help, but they're not perfect. Review by native speakers of the source language is always preferable. So, once this is back in draft space (assuming that's where this ends up), you might want to solicit Russian, Polish, and/or Italian speakers (see WP:Translators available) to help with the review. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:NCORP is a high hurdle these days and it is now clear that it is unlikely to be cleared by this subject at this time. WP:BITE would actually be better respected by not dragging this out any further. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely the applicable standard is WP:MUSIC, not WP:NCORP? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv mentions WP:NORG (a WP:NCORP alias) in their deletion nomination. The orchestra is music organization so either or both could apply I guess. ~Kvng (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks to me as if the sources presented above are just about enough to allow recreation. My Polish is fluent (I've been using it most days for over 40 years), I have an A level in Russian (but it's rather rusty because I passed it 43 years ago), and I know a little Italian (enough to get the gist of what the sources are saying). The sources all have this orchestra as their subject, and have several paragraphs of coverage each. The one in Polish is from Antyradio, the ones in Italian are from L'Eco di Bergamo and Bergamo Post, which looks like a reliable source, and the ones in Russian from Business Pskov, which appears to be a reliable source serving Pskov Oblast, and the rather more dodgy-looking Utro, which seems to be a publication published in Moscow that specialises in news about Ukraine (and Crimea in a separate section) from a very pro-Russian POV. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I offered my !vote before the requester insulted me on my talk page (and they insulted me because they don't like my !vote), so that my !vote is not affected by annoyance at their trolling. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Robert McClenon, I apologise if my comment on your page looks like trolling. Dariakupila (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Phil Bridger, thank you for taking time and going carefully through the sources. Dariakupila (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question that should be answered by the filer before this DRV closes:
  • • Does the filer have any conflict of interest such as an affiliation with the orchestra?
    • If the question is not answered by the time that this DRV closes, I suggest that the closer consider it to be a tacit acknowledgement of undisclosed paid editing.
    • The comments on my talk page do have the nature of trolling, which does not mean that the poster is or is not a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not object to allowing re-creation in draft space if the appropriate disclosure if any is made.
• Answer
  • • I am not paid by the orchestra for this article.
    • Robert McClenon, I apologise again for inappropriate behaviour and I will choose my words carefully in the future. I do not want to be taken for a troll neither I aim to insult or upset anybody. Dariakupila (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dariakupila:, I hate to sound cynical, but you didn't quite answer Robert McClenon's question. The question was if you had any conflict of interest. Your answer was that you are not paid for the article, but COI can include relationships other than being paid. Do you have any relationship with the orchestra of any kind? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:, I have been to their concert, I liked it. I've seen their videos online and I follow what they are up to. So yes I have interest in them. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. For what it's worth, I don't consider any of that a WP:COI. A COI would have been something like, "I'm a member of the orchestra", or even, "I have a relative who's a member of the orchestra", either of which makes "I am not paid by the orchestra for this article." a true statement, but still not full disclosure. My apologies for pushing this point, but we have a lot of COI editing and one learns to get sensitive to detecting it. And, once I get suspicious, anything which looks like an evasive answer just makes me more suspicious, which is why I pressed you for a more detailed response. I stand by my earlier comment; as this currently stands, the sourcing isn't good enough for mainspace, and it should be moved back to draftspace for further work finding better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:, thank you for the explanation. Appreciate it. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – the sources just aren't sufficient to pass WP:ORG (or WP:MUSIC for that matter). No amount of editing it in draftspace is going to solve that, per WP:NEXIST. – bradv🍁 15:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my drafify !vote, I'm not suggesting that editing will fix anything. I'm suggesting that this needs better sourcing and moving it back to draftspace will allow time for it to be found. If it turns out that better sourcing can't be found, because it doesn't exist, then eventually it'll time out of draft and get WP:G13'd. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-space really isn't for things that might become notable one day. – bradv🍁 03:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider the sources listed above to be insufficient? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources Hi Phil Bridger, I have found another source www.afanasy.biz/news in Russian. It is a review of the concert in Tver in 2018. What is your opinion of it? Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the google auto-translation, this looks like a good source. It's certainly in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV, and sure looks like it's independent. I'm unable to form an opinion on the overall quality of the source; I can't tell if this is a major national publication, or just local. Nor can I tell if it's just a blog post or if there's editorial control behind it. In the US, a ".biz" domain name usually means a crappy source, but I have no idea of that's true worldwide. But, it's certainly a start and enough to justify keeping this in draft space for further improvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a reliable source serving Tver Oblast. Similar in acceptability to the two sources in Italian and the one in Russian serving Pskov Oblast listed above, as a regional publication rather than a national or local one. It adds a little to my conviction that we should allow recreation, but I'm rather confused by your characterisation of this one as a good source, but not the first four of those listed near the top of this discussion. Those are just as good or, in the case of Antyradio, better, because that is a national publication. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger thank you for the thorough analysis of the sources! The discussion seems to be drying up a little. What is going to happen to my article? To begin with I could replace all the "dodgy-looking" sources with reliable ones. Dariakupila (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, thank you for checking out the source! afanasy.biz is a regional publication as mentioned above by Phil Bridger. As for a "biz" domain, I guess it comes from the name of the newspaper the website is based on - "Afanasy-business", they concentrate on daily business news. Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify/Allow recreation per sources presented. feminist (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:, would you please see if my article could be recreated? There are a few comments with "draftify" but no action has been taken. I still wish to add the sources and continue the article. Thank you. Best regards, Dariakupila (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this at WP:ANRFC#Deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]