User talk:Vergoulis

Welcome!
Hello, Vergoulis, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:BIP! Finder, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Harshil want to talk? 01:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:BIP! Finder


A tag has been placed on Draft:BIP! Finder, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the.  Harshil want to talk? 01:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)  Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:
 * you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
 * You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
 * There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
 * You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

More
It's clear that at least the speedy deletion nominator and I disagree with your self-assessment of your draft article, so I'll expand on the above
 * 'Your first reference is your own article, unsuitable both because you have a COI, which you have declared, and because it's a primary source (the fact that it's peer-reviewed isn't enough}. I can't access the other two refs, but from the context they seem to be about other algorithms, so basically your only ref is to your own paper.
 * Even if your text was taken at face value, there is nothing to indicate how it meets the software notability criteria I've linked above
 * Not a reason for deletion in this case, but the absence of any links, eg search engine or algorithm makes me wonder if the text is copied from elsewhere?
 * I consider your draft is promotion because you start it with a spamlink to your own website, source it to your own primary source and make no attempt to explain how it meets our notability criteria. The article clearly has no purpose other than to promote the outcome of your own research
 * Again, not a reason for deletion, but your post to me used "we" and "our" throughout. An account cannot represent a group of people, just yourself, so just be careful with that usage
 * If you think this topic merits an article, we need text that uses independent third-party that show why it meets our notability criteria, not just you telling us about your work
 * I hope this clarifies Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply
Hello again and thanks for the feedback. Reading the software notability criteria it becomes evident to me that, in order for a tool to be included in Wikipedia, its use should be already wide-spread. This is not the case of the particular tool, since it was introduced very recently (in November). Thus, I understand that (if I will try to resubmit a relevant article again) I have to wait until a significant number of relevant news/blog articles appear. Sorry for not realizing this fact earlier.

Let me however highlight that I wrote the article with good faith and I asked my questions having genuine interest to better understand the reasons why my article was rejected. Although I now understand the main reason why the article was rejected, there are a couple of matters that I would like to discuss:
 * I cannot see why the link to the tool is considered as a "spamlink". Maybe the position of the link was wrong, but I cannot understand why it is not proper to provide a link for the URL of the discussed tool.
 * Also it is incomprehensible to me why a peer-reviewed scientific paper (in a well-known venue) is not accepted as a valid reference to be included in the article. I understand why you need more references, but it seems extreme to me that you cannot also consider this one just because it was written by me (but also reviewed by a couple of expert referees).
 * Finally, the absence of links to other Wikipedia pages was just because this was my first article and it did not cross my mind that adding links for trivial terms was that important. Furthermore, that page was just a (not-public) draft and I assumed that if my article had any flaws the reviewer would point them out and guide me to correct them before the final release of the article. The whole article was written from scratch, the absence of links is not a good indicator for plagiarism. If you suspect that the text was the result of plagiarism it would be better to use a proper software for this.

Sorry for the apologetic tone, but I felt I should provide some comments about the previous issues. Again, thanks for making me realize what was wrong with the submission. Vergoulis (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)