Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 February 11
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 10 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | February 12 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
February 11
[edit]08:56, 11 February 2024 review of submission by Thomastruong158
[edit]Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Draft:Thomas TRUONG Submission
Dear DoubleGrazing,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request a reconsideration of the decision on my recent article submission, "Thomas TRUONG." I appreciate the time and effort you have put into reviewing the submission, and I understand the concerns regarding the adequacy of reliable sources and the demonstration of notability as per Wikipedia's guidelines. I believe that further clarification and the addition of newly identified sources may address these issues.
1. Reliable and Independent Sources: The submission includes references from the MIT Technology Review, a highly reputable and independent publication well-recognized for its rigorous editorial standards. This source provides significant coverage of Thomas TRUONG's contributions to artificial intelligence and robotics, particularly focusing on his development of the VocalSign app. I understand the importance of diversifying sources and have since identified additional independent, reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of TRUONG's work and its impact on the field. These include feature articles in BFM Business and interviews in recognized industry publications that are independent of TRUONG and his work, further validating his notability.
2. Significant Coverage and Notability: In response to the feedback on notability, I have taken steps to further emphasize the significance of TRUONG's contributions to his field. The additional sources I've found offer in-depth discussions of the societal impact of his innovations, awards and recognitions he has received from esteemed organizations, and his influence on the development of technology for accessibility. These sources are not mere passing mentions but detailed examinations of TRUONG's work and its importance, meeting the guideline for significant coverage.
3. Commitment to Wikipedia's Standards: I am fully committed to ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia's highest standards for verifiability and neutrality. To this end, I am ready to revise the draft to incorporate the additional sources and to work on any areas that might benefit from further clarification or expansion to fully comply with Wikipedia's content guidelines.
4. Request for Specific Guidance: While I have endeavored to address the concerns raised, I would greatly appreciate any specific guidance or suggestions you may have that could help improve the submission. Your expertise and insight would be invaluable in ensuring that the article not only meets the notability criteria but also enriches the Wikipedia community with factual, well-sourced information about a notable individual in the technology sector.
In closing, I respectfully request that the decision to not accept the submission at this time be reconsidered in light of the additional information and sources provided. I believe that Thomas TRUONG's contributions are of encyclopedic value and that, with the proposed revisions, the article will meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards.
Thank you very much for your consideration and for your guidance throughout this process. I look forward to your feedback and am eager to make the necessary adjustments to contribute a valuable article to Wikipedia. Best regards, T Thomastruong158 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thomastruong158 If you wish to address DoubleGrazing specifically, please use their user talk page. The community frowns on chatbot generated posts(this ranked 83%); we want to hear from you, not a bot. If your English skill is such that you are unable to communicate without using a bot, it would be advised that you edit the Wikipedia of your primary language(French?)
- You seem to be writing about yourself, but you speak as if you are not Mr. Trong. Please clarify. If you are Mr. Trong, writing about yourself is highly discouraged(though it is not forbidden). See the autobiography policy.
- You say you have provided additional sources, but I only see one. You say "Truong's contributions to technology and accessibility have been recognized by the technology community" but offer no sources to describe this recognition. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
10:04, 11 February 2024 review of submission by Nitin000808
[edit]- Nitin000808 (talk · contribs)
I want to help for the resolving errors of page Nitin000808 (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please see the advice left by reviewers, and read the policies that they linked to in their messages. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
11:36, 11 February 2024 review of submission by 51.175.231.6
[edit]- 51.175.231.6 (talk · contribs)
The project WikiDNS is the next generation Domain Name System with DNS records in JSON. 51.175.231.6 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, and? Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
13:09, 11 February 2024 review of submission by Thomastruong158
[edit]Subject: Request for Assistance on Addressing Potential Discriminatory Practices in Content Evaluation
Dear Help Desk,
I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to request assistance regarding what I perceive to be potential discriminatory practices in the content evaluation and publication process on Wikipedia. This issue concerns the non-publication of an article about Thomas Truong, a distinguished French engineer and entrepreneur recognized for his significant contributions to accessibility technologies.
Despite providing substantial evidence of Truong's notability, including his recognition as an MIT Innovator Under 35 and the impactful innovation of the VocalSign app, the submission was declined. The decision appears to narrowly focus on the quantity of sources rather than the depth of impact and quality of Truong's contributions. More concerning is the potential oversight of the broader societal implications of his work and the unintentional marginalization of achievements by individuals from minority backgrounds.
I believe this case may highlight a larger issue of how notability and relevance are evaluated, potentially disadvantaging contributions from minority groups and people of color. As Wikipedia stands as a beacon of knowledge and inclusivity, ensuring equitable representation and acknowledgment of diverse contributions is paramount.
Therefore, I kindly request your guidance on how to address this matter effectively. I am particularly interested in understanding the avenues available for contesting decisions that may inadvertently perpetuate bias, as well as any measures in place to ensure a fair and inclusive evaluation process.
Furthermore, I am prepared to escalate this matter to ensure that Wikipedia's content evaluation processes remain fair, unbiased, and reflective of the diverse society we live in. I believe that addressing this issue not only aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to inclusivity but also sets a precedent for recognizing and valuing the contributions of all individuals, regardless of their background.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your guidance and assistance in resolving this issue in a manner that reinforces Wikipedia's principles of diversity and equality.
Sincerely, T Thomastruong158 (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Thomastruong158: I'm starting to think that you're trolling us.
- One more time: do not post these massive AI-generated messages everywhere. Write in your own words, and try to keep it brief.
- Please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO. You should not be writing about yourself. You have a conflict of interest.
- You have not provided evidence of notability, "substantial" or otherwise.
- The draft is promotional.
- And last but not least, you are fast heading for a block, if you continue this tendentious line of activity. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
15:38, 11 February 2024 review of submission by Mato4w
[edit]Hi. I spent at least an hour creating a draft article for macOS file manager app Nimble Commander. I created the draft based on some other similar articles I found on Wikipedia. I kept the article very short and factual. I'd like to hear why it was declined - specific reasons please. I'm happy to adjust the draft but at the moment it's not clear what its reviewer did not like about it. I'm a happy user of the app and I included only information that can be verified from the app's website and from the app itself. I've no idea what other "independent" information sources I could provide. I'm afraid it seems to me the decline was faster than one could read the draft, without even fact checking. :-/ mato (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Mato4w: there was no need for 'fact checking', with a single glance one could tell that this is an advert, with no evidence of notability to boot, as it only cites the developer's own website as source. We need to see significant coverage of the subject in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Your draft should merely summarise what such sources have said. Anything without such sources is considered promotional by definition. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not in any way related to the app or its author. I searched for a file manager for macOS, I checked Wikipedia too and when I found Nimble Commander and was happy with it I wanted to add it to the list of file managers here. So which part do you find to be an advert, please? I don't see any but I can remove it, no problem. Thanks. mato (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The entire thing. A Wikipedia article is not for merely documenting the existence of something and telling what it does- nor is it for summarizing what the makers of a product say about it. A Wikipedia article should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Do you have any independent sources that on their own, not based on materials from the producers, discuss this software and what makes it important/significant/influential? 331dot (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is that really so? Well, there's an article on Total Commander, which is a great software, but 10 out of 11 references in its article here on Wikipedia link to its own website. And none of them shows independently how notable that application is. Should the article be removed? According to your definition it surely should. Meanwhile there's an article here about file managers. It's clearly incomplete. I wanted to improve it, add another option for users searching for such software. I provided a link to forum for the app. It's been running for years, there are real people happy with the app. Is it not enough for you to acknowledge the app is useful? What's the point of articles here if they are incomplete and outdated? There are apps in there that have been dead for years and here we have a current and long time maintained app and you refuse it can have at least a minimal article on Wikipedia? Really? I hope not. Otherwise it does not look very well for the future and relevance of Wikipedia and its community. mato (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Mato4w: this is the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy: just because there are other problematic articles out there, doesn't mean we should create more such problems. If you come across an article that is lacking, you're more than welcome to improve it, or if this cannot be done, initiate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm simply pointing out that what you say does not match reality here. I don't care about removing such articles, even if they are just stubs, I found them useful to learn about those apps. But now I question usefulness or the whole point of having articles like comparison of file managers and articles on file managers. They are incomplete and outdated and your approach does not help.
- And when I mentioned Total Commander, which really is a great app with long heritage and countless happy users, yet its article is rather brief. And then there's an article on Commander One app which clearly is one big fat advertisement. How that one slipped through your radars? Oh, well, whatever. I wasted a few hours of my life trying to improve Wikipedia. Lesson learned, it's not worth it. mato (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mato4u This is a volunteer project, where people do what they choose when they have time to do it. We need help in weeding out inappropriate articles for action. If you would like to help, it would be welcome in the extreme. We're only as good as the people who choose to help.
- Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, especially for a new user. It takes practice and experience editing elsewhere helps. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Why would I do it if it's clear we're not aligned? You claim you're interested in well known / researched topics. I tried to add an article about an app I find useful and which I believe many others might find useful too. It does not meet your definition of what should be on Wikipedia, while yours does not meet my needs. Articles like comparison of file managers are useful because one can find more information there than in a random "5 best apps for macOS" article from a well known website (the ones you suggest you prefer for referencing). Yet I just found someone reverted my edit there too - "Trim promotional edit". What exactly is promotional about adding a row to the table that is supposed to list file managers?? How are the other entries not promotional? And what exactly should be in that list? Half of the entries there are obsolete and irrelevant. The whole article can be seen as such if you don't allow it to be edited and enhanced. Actually Wikipedia as such if this is how you manage it. No wonder other platforms have appeared and are full of life. This is a glaring example of how your ideas do not meet needs of users. What a pity. mato (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way, but it is true that the way things work here isn't for everyone. Nothing bad about that, it just is. As I said, we're only as good as the people who choose to help us. The community only can change if people invest their time to do the work needed to change it. That's the case for articles or general policies.
- An app that you find useful is nice, but being useful is not part of the notability criteria unless independent reliable sources write about its usefulness and what is significant about that.
- There are other projects that may be more compatible with what you are looking for. Wikipedia is consistently one of the top visited websites on this planet, so it isn't in any danger. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it is, but even from this it's clear there's a big difference between Wikipedia as seen by users (me in this case) and those behind it (you in this case). Seeing how difficult it is to get something in, make a simple change, I doubt I will bother again. Also, it highlights how stale Wikipedia can be, showing what was written long time ago, incomplete and/or obsolete, refusing changes / additions due to newer policies unknown to users thus making many of its articles less relevant. You surely opened my eyes today. mato (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please understand that the users are the ones who are behind this website. Every contributor is a volunteer. There is very little difference between you vs us, other than experience. Qcne (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I thought it's clear that I meant users like me who simply browse Wikipedia without knowing how it works behind the curtains (and most don't care). I'm sure it's "us" that generate the most traffic. And I'd guess the goal of Wikipedia is not to be just for the select ones (contributors). But the point is that "I"/"we" can have a rather different view of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. And clearly there's a difference between us, as you make decisions while I can just wonder and argue about them. mato (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, I updated the article draft as we discussed elsewhere. Let's see if that makes any difference. Thanks and regards. mato (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've tidied up a tiny bit of the language and references, and will leave it to another reviewer to look at. This may take two months or more due to the current backlog. Qcne (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you! mato (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've tidied up a tiny bit of the language and references, and will leave it to another reviewer to look at. This may take two months or more due to the current backlog. Qcne (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please understand that the users are the ones who are behind this website. Every contributor is a volunteer. There is very little difference between you vs us, other than experience. Qcne (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it is, but even from this it's clear there's a big difference between Wikipedia as seen by users (me in this case) and those behind it (you in this case). Seeing how difficult it is to get something in, make a simple change, I doubt I will bother again. Also, it highlights how stale Wikipedia can be, showing what was written long time ago, incomplete and/or obsolete, refusing changes / additions due to newer policies unknown to users thus making many of its articles less relevant. You surely opened my eyes today. mato (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Why would I do it if it's clear we're not aligned? You claim you're interested in well known / researched topics. I tried to add an article about an app I find useful and which I believe many others might find useful too. It does not meet your definition of what should be on Wikipedia, while yours does not meet my needs. Articles like comparison of file managers are useful because one can find more information there than in a random "5 best apps for macOS" article from a well known website (the ones you suggest you prefer for referencing). Yet I just found someone reverted my edit there too - "Trim promotional edit". What exactly is promotional about adding a row to the table that is supposed to list file managers?? How are the other entries not promotional? And what exactly should be in that list? Half of the entries there are obsolete and irrelevant. The whole article can be seen as such if you don't allow it to be edited and enhanced. Actually Wikipedia as such if this is how you manage it. No wonder other platforms have appeared and are full of life. This is a glaring example of how your ideas do not meet needs of users. What a pity. mato (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Mato4w: this is the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy: just because there are other problematic articles out there, doesn't mean we should create more such problems. If you come across an article that is lacking, you're more than welcome to improve it, or if this cannot be done, initiate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is that really so? Well, there's an article on Total Commander, which is a great software, but 10 out of 11 references in its article here on Wikipedia link to its own website. And none of them shows independently how notable that application is. Should the article be removed? According to your definition it surely should. Meanwhile there's an article here about file managers. It's clearly incomplete. I wanted to improve it, add another option for users searching for such software. I provided a link to forum for the app. It's been running for years, there are real people happy with the app. Is it not enough for you to acknowledge the app is useful? What's the point of articles here if they are incomplete and outdated? There are apps in there that have been dead for years and here we have a current and long time maintained app and you refuse it can have at least a minimal article on Wikipedia? Really? I hope not. Otherwise it does not look very well for the future and relevance of Wikipedia and its community. mato (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The entire thing. A Wikipedia article is not for merely documenting the existence of something and telling what it does- nor is it for summarizing what the makers of a product say about it. A Wikipedia article should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Do you have any independent sources that on their own, not based on materials from the producers, discuss this software and what makes it important/significant/influential? 331dot (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not in any way related to the app or its author. I searched for a file manager for macOS, I checked Wikipedia too and when I found Nimble Commander and was happy with it I wanted to add it to the list of file managers here. So which part do you find to be an advert, please? I don't see any but I can remove it, no problem. Thanks. mato (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
23:35, 11 February 2024 review of submission by Kija Mazani
[edit]- Kija Mazani (talk · contribs)
Javad Nazari is an actor, composer and singer from Iran, whose films and works are available in many important databases of movies and serials, as well as music, but unfortunately, some people have defamed him on Wikipedia, and for this reason, the article cannot be published. He published them on Wikipedia, of course, this restriction is only for normal users, and administrators and verified users are exempt from this rule, so if possible, a request to publish the article for him is requested. Thanks Kija Mazani (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Kija Mazani Wanting to edit a topic that is repeatedly targeted by a user or users(as recently as two weeks ago) is not the best thing to do for a new user. Do you have a particular interest in this topic? 331dot (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)