Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 March 19

= March 19 =

08:20:43, 19 March 2023 review of submission by Raghav1788
Raghav1788 (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Raghav1788: you don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

13:18:37, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Walnuthillstreet
Hello i have edited this draft and attached what i consider to be reliable sources and removed information that could not be sourced. I would be very grateful if someone could review for me before i resubmit. Thanks in advance ---

Walnuthillstreet (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Walnuthillstreet: in other words, you're asking for a review, before you resubmit this for a review? We don't provide 'pre-reviews'; when you feel that you've addressed the reasons for the earlier declines, please just submit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks will do Walnuthillstreet (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

14:59:34, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Overly Simplistic Username
Hi there, the article has been made a draft for not being properly covered and sourced? Are there any specific areas that this seems to apply to which my novice eyes have missed? Also could someone please clarify the purpose of a stub as I was under the impression that an article being a stub meant that it gave some understanding but still left room to be improved in the future and expanded upon? If that is true then does that not negate the point in regards to it not being sufficiently in-depth by USER:M.Ashraf333's standards?

Just looking for a bit of clarification and advice here.

Thanks!

Overly Simplistic Username (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Overly Simplistic Username: this was draftified because the subject doesn't appear to be notable, which is fundamental requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. There's nothing in the career etc. details that would seem to make her inherently notable, therefore notability must be established via WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. None of the sources cited meets this standard.
 * And yes, stubs do get some leeway, but mostly in the breadth of coverage and completeness of contents, not in terms of notability, or for that matter verifiability. (Not that this is IMO anymore a stub, BTW.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

16:20:20, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Aniprk007
My article, Draft: Gumraah (2023 Film) was rejected even when it has all the relevant information and sources to confirm the same, in lieu of that a similar named draft, Draft:Gumraah (2023 Film) exists which has only a single line written as of now. Kindly recheck my draft Gumraah (2023 Film)

Aniprk007 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Aniprk007 The draft was declined before, not rejected -- rejected means the draft won't be considered further, while declined means you can address the reasons for the decline, and resubmit. The draft is currently being reviewed.  What does "The movie was set to go on floors in the summer of 2020..." mean?  Is this something in Hindi, or English spoken by people from India?  I have never heard that expression before.  If it means the movie was set to be in theaters on that date, or released on that date, please reword that sentence. Also, I don't think the actor's names should be italicized when they are mentioned.  I made a couple of very small copy-edits to the draft. David10244 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions I have made the necessary changes. If you have any further suggestions do let me know.
 * Also there's another draft Draft : Gulmohar (2023 TV Series) which should be deleted, as the title mentions it as a TV Series but actually it's a Film and an article for the same already exists by the title Gulmohar (2023 Film) Aniprk007 (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aniprk007 Editor Sush150 made several edits and moved the article  to mainspace. David10244 (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

17:47:13, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Hhbowie
I am confused by the feedback I am getting. The reason for my latest rejection is that my draft entry reads too much like an advertisement. But then the specific words that are cited as objectionable are clearly placed in a section titled "Reception." If the reception has been favorable, then wouldn't you expect the words in this section to sound a bit like an advertisement? Is the problem that I should take out the whole section? But then I'm not sure how to include citations to several good independent sources and, of course, it is also important to include a healthy number of these in the article. So I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't believe that any of the text outside of the "Reception" section reads like an advertisement.

Hhbowie (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Content like "known for its powerful features, an abundance of import and export options, its many customization options and its friendly native Mac user interface" is nothing but blatant advertising! Theroadislong (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am/was just trying to summarize what others (cited neutral third parties) have said about the application. If people have gone on record as saying these things, then how is it "blatant advertising" to summarize what has been said? Hhbowie (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hhbowie Language that praises can sometines be acceptable if it is carefully worded, such as "Reviewer Mary Smith at ABC Reviews called (the  product) "fantastic"".  (Reference goes here) Some reviewers don't like this much puffery,  even if it's referenced. I can't see what was written before being deleted. David10244 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)