WIRIS – Deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
WIRIS (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) The article contains valid information for a software widely used in many European countries and references to the pages of the several ministries of education who are using it. It has been deleted by user Lectonar twice for being publicity, but he never replied to any of my two requests of reasons for deletion, and he blocked recreation now. Wirismath (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wirismath, I'm afraid a deletion review will not restore this page for you. Deletion review will conclude that Lectonar was correct. There are two main reasons why. First, the deleted version of the article did not have any reliable sources. (Reliable sources are sources with a reputation for fact-checking that are independent of the subject. Because all of the references were to the Wirismath website or Wirismath's publisher's website, none of them were independent.) This means that our policies on verifiability and notability require the page to be removed. Second, your username ("Wirismath") makes it clear that you are a representative of the article's subject. This means you have a conflict of interest and should not be writing an article on the subject; anything written by username "Wirismath" about the WIRIS math software is clearly promotional in intent. I'm afraid that you can probably expect this username to be blocked as well. A different article about WIRIS, based on independent reliable sources by a user without a conflict of interest, might be acceptable--if significant coverage in reliable sources was shown to exist. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but this particular content is gone for good. Endorse and snow close.—S Marshall T/C 13:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] actually, it just might be notable -Google Scholar [1] shows a number of presentations of it at academic conferences, presentations that have been cited by third parties; it also shows a substantial amount of mention elsewhere. I'd suggest looking carefully at the sources and using it as the base for an acceptably sourced article in your user space, and then coming here again. . This is one of the problems about COI--editors with COI tend not to focus sufficiently on finding such third party sources even when they actually do exist. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Probably, but Spartaz has correctly blocked this username as representing a real world organisation or interest on Wikipedia and invited the user to re-register as an individual person. And while I think this content needs to remain gone, I was careful to say that a different article about WIRIS that's based on the reliable sources might be acceptable.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Dear admins S Marshall and DGG, thank you for the explanations and for the advice, everything seems to me reasonable and you made the effort to explain things at length and to seek sources. I have to say that everything would have been simpler if admin Lectonar had replied to any of my messages seeking this sort of information. However, grateful of the advice, not only enciclopedias, but also users get better with time... 12:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirismath (talk • contribs) [reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

WIRIS – Deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article contains valid information for a software widely used in many European countries and references to the pages of the several ministries of education who are using it. It has been deleted by user Lectonar twice for being publicity, but he never replied to any of my two requests of reasons for deletion, and he blocked recreation now. Wirismath (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wirismath, I'm afraid a deletion review will not restore this page for you. Deletion review will conclude that Lectonar was correct. There are two main reasons why.
First, the deleted version of the article did not have any reliable sources. (Reliable sources are sources with a reputation for fact-checking that are independent of the subject. Because all of the references were to the Wirismath website or Wirismath's publisher's website, none of them were independent.) This means that our policies on verifiability and notability require the page to be removed.
Second, your username ("Wirismath") makes it clear that you are a representative of the article's subject. This means you have a conflict of interest and should not be writing an article on the subject; anything written by username "Wirismath" about the WIRIS math software is clearly promotional in intent. I'm afraid that you can probably expect this username to be blocked as well.
A different article about WIRIS, based on independent reliable sources by a user without a conflict of interest, might be acceptable--if significant coverage in reliable sources was shown to exist. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but this particular content is gone for good. Endorse and snow close.—S Marshall T/C 13:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, it just might be notable -Google Scholar [1] shows a number of presentations of it at academic conferences, presentations that have been cited by third parties; it also shows a substantial amount of mention elsewhere. I'd suggest looking carefully at the sources and using it as the base for an acceptably sourced article in your user space, and then coming here again. . This is one of the problems about COI--editors with COI tend not to focus sufficiently on finding such third party sources even when they actually do exist. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but Spartaz has correctly blocked this username as representing a real world organisation or interest on Wikipedia and invited the user to re-register as an individual person. And while I think this content needs to remain gone, I was careful to say that a different article about WIRIS that's based on the reliable sources might be acceptable.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins S Marshall and DGG, thank you for the explanations and for the advice, everything seems to me reasonable and you made the effort to explain things at length and to seek sources. I have to say that everything would have been simpler if admin Lectonar had replied to any of my messages seeking this sort of information. However, grateful of the advice, not only enciclopedias, but also users get better with time... 12:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirismath (talk • contribs) [reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.