• Dogliepop (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Umarjaum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I used a reputable sources to cite the draft. Such as dawn news.In case only one reliable reference is enough to be inclusion of article on wikipedia. please explain soi can do on you suggestion,you suggestion matters for me. Dogliepop (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogliepop: the subject is not notable, time to drop it and move on. And blocked users aren't allowed to edit under any user name, or logged-out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogliepop: One source is not enough, and the cites to various useless sources (Wikidata, Google, Discogs, Vasya, YouTube, VeryHappyBirthday, Bandcamp, Amazon, Spotify) would kill the draft even if one source were good. Your Dawn News source doesn't even mention Jaum at all; we do have to actually read the sources in order to properly assess them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ariyamettakula (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ariyamettakula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit typo requested. Ariyamettakula (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ariyamettakula: pardon? We don't provide copy editing services here at the help desk, in case that's what you meant. I will decline your draft, though, as it's completely unreferenced, among other problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexmargate (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Tracey Emin Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, The article was created without 'advertising' in mind. I edited it based on similar organisations, and now, after working on it all day, I find it has been completely deleted. Alexmargate (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexmargate First, if you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID(note that "paid editing" includes employment or any form of compensation, even if it isn't money).

It is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as those too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that as a new user. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inapprpriate articles to exist, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are considered good articles, which have received community vetting. If you want to help us address inappropriate articles, please identify the ones you have seen for possible action. We need the help.

Regarding your draft, Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about an organization and what it does. Wikipedia articles about organizations must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 331dot,

Thank you for your feedback regarding my draft article on the Tracey Emin Foundation. I would like to clarify that I am not associated with the foundation. My intention was to contribute to Wikipedia with accurate and neutral information based on reliable and respected sources, such as well-known art publications and leading UK newspapers, excluding tabloids.

I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and would like the opportunity to revise and improve the article. Could the draft be returned to my drafts space rather than being deleted completely? This would allow me to address any issues and ensure the content meets the necessary standards for notability and reliability. Alexmargate (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexmargate You didn't pick this topic at random to edit about. How did you come to edit about it?

The original draft was deleted as unambiguous promotion. I can view it as an admin, and I agree that it was. There is nothing there worth salvaging that could become part of an article. If you want to try again, you should start fresh. We usually recommend that new editors not dive right in to creating new articles- the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that they start out editing existing articles, to gain experience and knowledge. Using the new user tutorial helps people as well.

Your sources were just documentation of the existence of the Foundation, and annoucements of its activities- not significant coverage that goes into detail about what the sources/sources see as important/significant/influential about the Foundation- how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Please review the definition carefully. What are the three best sources that you have that provide significant coverage of this organization? 331dot (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yevvvah (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yevvvah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can you tell me what needs to be changed in my article in order to have it on Wikipedia? Arshak Khachatrian is very famous here in our city and I want to add his information here. Please let me know, thank you! Yevvvah (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references are all from valid and trustworthy sources, there is no social media link for you to mark it as a promotion. What's wrong? Yevvvah (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yevvvah: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You cannot just slap all your sources on the end of the article; they need to be cited at claims within the article itself, specifically ones those sources can explicitly support. This is not negotiable. I will look at your sources shortly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited the refs in the article, all of them are there. Please recheck and come back to me. 🙏 Thanks @Jéské Couriano! Yevvvah (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yevvvah: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• https://tumo.org/the-tumo-path-to-disqo is useless for notability (too sparse). Quotes, no discussion of Khachatrian.
• We can't use https://portfolio.tumo.org/nep56xkyg/ (too sparse). Content-free timeline.
• We can't use https://theorg.com/org/wirestock/org-chart/arshak-khachatrian (unknown provenance). Who wrote this?
• We can't use https://www.awwwards.com/jury-member/dreammmr (too sparse) and even if we could it'd be useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• We don't cite Google (no editorial oversight).
• https://boon.am/socio-political/society/generation-xyz-the-big-it-world-and-more/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Podcast he spoke on, based on a translated synopsis.

None of your sources are actually usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské CourianoExcuse me, but your rejection reasons don't make sense. None of the sources was written by Arshak Khachatrian / Khachatryan.

• https://tumo.org/the-tumo-path-to-disqo - this link only is expressing his notability in the article
• https://theorg.com/org/wirestock/org-chart/arshak-khachatrian (unknown provenance). This was written by The Org about overall his experiences and paths. This was again no connection to Arshak.
• He wrote "Getting Started with Polymer" book and is the author of the book, there are million of sources of the book available on Amazon, Ebay, Wallmart or anywhere else. Why is it a problem? It's his book info. https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Started-Polymer-Arshak-Khachatrian/dp/1785889370 https://www.walmart.com/ip/Getting-Started-with-Polymer-Paperback-9781785889370/609825719 https://www.ebay.com/itm/186398313131 https://books.apple.com/ca/book/getting-started-with-polymer/id6443677296
• https://boon.am/socio-political/society/generation-xyz-the-big-it-world-and-more/ how is this connected to him? It's an interview not a podcast, and BoonTV is famous TV channel in Armenia. None of the sources is connected to the subject, because all of the sources are independent and famous organizations in Armenia and worldwide.

Yevvvah (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look: Your draft has been rejected and won't be reviewed again. There's no point in trying to convince people otherwise. You're just wasting time. If you're looking for something else to do, the task center has a list of tasks that you can help with. C F A 💬 16:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yevvvah: all your sources are primary and/or non-independent, and therefore don't contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yevvyah, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yevvvah: You're mis-interpreting what I'm saying.

• Tumo grants no notability because the article merely quotes him and does not actually discuss him. The article is practically a listicle and doesn't really devote any space to anyone mentioned in it.
• TheOrg has no credited author. We're very leery of uncredited articles, or articles credited to a role ("News Desk", etc.) because of how frequently they're used to publish content that bypassed the editor's desk.
• Google only ever regurgitates whatever the publisher says (or in the case of the Knowledge Panel, whatever nonsense they scrape from random, disparate sources) and so nothing Google presents is usable for notability since they don't actually subject it to editorial oversight.
• Interview vs. podcast is a distinction without a difference. Anything Khachatrian writes, says, films, commissions, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for notability by dint of his direct involvement in it. The same applies to anything written, said, filmed, commissioned, semaphored, interpretive-danced, etc. by any entity closely linked to him. You cannot seriously be arguing that an interview of him isn't him speaking about himself.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yevrowl (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mark Ginzburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings! Please suggest — what else can be improved in this article? Yevrowl (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• OliveRacc (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lifesteal SMP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help making this page better in general and I have never used Wikipedia before. OliveRacc (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your Minecraft server. If independent reliable sources like news reports discuss your server, that would be different. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

If there are no such sources then there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]