User:ONUnicorn/Good responses explaining policy

Help desk from July 18, 2023
So, I had a look at Draft:Slobodan Šarenac and the talk page, and I've gone ahead and restored them so you can see what I'm talking about and continue working on the draft to try to improve it if you like.
 * You say you don't understand why it wasn't approved. It wasn't approved because as written, the draft didn't show that Šarenac meets the notability requirements.
 * What are these requirements?
 * "People are presumed if they have received significant coverage in  that are,  of each other, and."
 * How do you demonstrate that an article subject meets those requirements? By citing sources that meet those requirements.
 * You cited 3 sources in that draft.
 * Слободан Шаренац, МВП интервју (21.01.2013), Retrieved January 28, 2016 - This appears to be an interview of Šarenac. As an interview of him, it fails the criteria of being independant of him.  It is him telling his story and saying what he wants to say, possibly painting himself in a good light.  It is inherently not neutral in its presentation of him.  We need to be able to summarize what people who have no incentive to portray him in a particularly good or bad light have said about him.  If the main or only source we use is his own words about himself, we cannot write from a neutral point of view.
 * - This is very brief, only about 2 sentences. It fails to be significant coverage.
 * - This is another interview with him. It has the same problems as the first source.
 * Basically, in order to show that he is notable and get the article accepted, you need to find more than one source that talks about him in some length and detail, but was not produced by him or his employers. He can be quoted, but it should not be a straight up interview. Does that help?

Help desk from October 10, 2023
Throughout my response I will include links to applicable policies and guidelines; I suggest you read or at least skim them, but they are a lot, so I'm trying to summarize.
 * The way Wikipedia defines "notable" for our purposes is a little different than the dictionary definition of notable.
 * You see, one of our core policies is that everything in the encyclopedia must be verifiable from reliable sources - in other words, that there must exist somewhere outside of Wikipedia a written source for all the information in this Encyclopedia so that a determined reader could fact check our articles and see where our information comes from.
 * Because of this, our definition of notable revolves around the existence of sources, because no matter how worthy something is of note (the dictionary definition of notable), we cannot write about it unless there are sources to draw information from.
 * Quoting from the General notability guideline: "A topic is to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received  in  that are ."  Breaking this down a bit
 * "Significant coverage" is coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - this can be a little squishy to nail down what is and is not significant coverage, but there are some examples listed here.
 * "Reliable sources" are often context-dependent, as a source can be reliable for some things but not for others. One major clue to if a source is reliable or not is if it has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Note that sources must be published - they must be "available to the public in some form".  Articles should be primarily built around secondary sources, with extremely limited use of primary or tertiary sources to supplement information from secondary sources.  This leads into the requirement that sources be independent, as if a person or company is publishing information about themself, it is virtually always considered a primary source.
 * "Independant" means that the source has no direct connection to the person or thing being written about. If a person or company is publishing information about themselves, or putting out press releases that the press is regurgitating, they have an incentive to make themselves look good, in other words, that information cannot be expected to be neutral and to tell a complete story.  We don't want our articles to be based solely around what someone wants to say about themselves, we need our articles to be based around what other people who have no interest one way or another have had to say about them.
 * So, now that you know that notability as we use that word here is not about if something is worthy of note, it's about if we have sufficient sources from which to build an article about a topic, you are in a better position to know if your friend's YouTube channel is notable or not. So, is it?  Can you point us to at least 3 reliable sources that are independent of the channel and your friend that have written about or discussed the channel in some detail?

9/20/2023
I will point out that you have had a lot of your articles/drafts either deleted or at least nominated for deletion under G11, which allows for the deletion of "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" on sight. These seem to go back to your earliest contributions here in 2007 all the way to your current contributions.
 * I want to help you understand why this keeps happening, what it is about your articles that triggers people's spam detectors, so that you can write better articles that are less likely to be deleted.
 * First, realize that G11 is not about the topic of the article, it's about the writing style. It's also a little inherently subjective.
 * One of the things that alerts makes articles seem like ads is the presence of "puffery" - language that creates the effect of making something sound good or important. Phrases like "highly-acclaimed", "award-winning", "famous", etc.  Avoid that.
 * For example, in the I deleted (Taneira), included language like, "The brand has ambitious plans..."
 * Another problem that makes articles seem like ads is an excessive reliance on non-independent sources, like a company's website, press releases, and sponsored content.
 * Also, when a company writes about itself it tends to use a lot of generic, impressive-sounding phrases, like "ethnic wear brand" instead of "clothing company". It tends to talk about lofty ideals like "aims to modernize ethnic wear while preserving traditional hand-weaving techniques" and "vision of modernizing the ethnic wear market in India."  Phrases like that are PR-speak that has almost no place in a Wikipedia article, and in as much as there is a place in a Wikipedia article for discussion of a company's mission and vision, it needs to be an attributed quote, not in Wikivoice.
 * I hope this helps.