Help desk
< September 17	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 19 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

September 18

11:29:48, 18 September 2017 review of submission by Justarandomuser1234

Justarandomuser1234 (talk · contribs)

Hi there,

Having read the reason for declining this article it makes sense. However, just wondering if the event could be made as a page or if not would any further information be enough to create the page for the person themselves.

Rob Pope has run 365 marathons this year and is on local TV in America very frequently, I am unsure if this makes him more famous than notable however there is a lot of press surrounding him and this amazing endeavour he is continuing on. As a sports person he has also won the liverpool marathon and became Australian running champion as well as just this weekend winning the prefontaine run, is this a better avenue to produce an article?

Justarandomuser1234 (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justarandomuser1234: Hello, Randomuser. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I think the draft's reviewer made a good call in citing the "only one event" criterion when declining your draft, even if it was a close call. I'm also a bit troubled by how much of the sourcing is local coverage. True, you've shown that the coverage is coming from a lot of different localities, but that's simply the nature of this particular event. Most of that coverage is of the human-interest type, with the reporters essentially saying "Hey folks, an unusual person is in our locality!". But one of your sources -- the one from the BBC -- turns out to be more substantial than the others. And this leads me to wonder whether you might make a better case if you widened your search for sources. I'm thinking particularly of magazines that cater to the running community (I don't know the names of any, but I'm sure they exist). If you can show that two or three of them have published feature articles on the guy, then I think you'll be able to argue that the subject is considered significant in the field in which he operates.

On a less substantive note, I see that your draft fails to conform with some of our basic standards for creating articles. If you haven't already done so, you might want to work through our WP:Tutorial to learn more about these standards and practices. It also wouldn't hurt to look at some of our better articles on runners, such as Terry Fox or Stamata Revithi. Doing so will help you see how the basic techniques get used in practice. And it wouldn't hurt to format your references using the {{cite web}} template, which makes it easier to provide the essential bibliographic detail required under WP:CITE (and which you are currently not providing). Later today, I'll head back to your draft and format one of the references, which you can then use as an example for the rest.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:50:01, 18 September 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Giznej

Giznej (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Multi-objective linear programming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article was three times rejected by different reviewers saying that it should be included into "Multi-objective Optimization" or elsewhere. As I don't think this is a good idea I would like to know what to do in this case. The reason why "Draft:Multi-objective_linear_programming" should not be included into an existing article is twofold. On the one hand the topic is way too complex, my article is just a beginning and is planned to be extended. By the same reason, Linear Programming is an extra article and not a subsection of Mathematical Optimization. Another reason is that the solution concepts in Multi-objective Optimization are not always compatible with those of in Multi-objective optimization. Giznej (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:42, 18 September 2017 review of submission by Political Fill

Political Fill (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Laura Curran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has the page i wrote been published? It should be under Laura Curran.

Political Fill (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Political Fill: no, your submission is waiting for review. The infobox has been fixed by Worldbruce, but you still need to address the notability issue that SwisterTwister gave as the reason for declining. You should fix this as soon as possible while waiting for another review. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:22, 18 September 2017 review of submission by WIREeditor

WIREeditor (talk · contribs)

I believe I posed a query about the rejection of this page earlier this morning, but now can't see it in the list of today's questions. Is that simply because it's not been answered yet or does that mean that it's been lost (which may be because I failed to save it correctly) and I should try again? WIREeditor (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WIREeditor: It's good that you followed up on this. There's no record of you posting a question here (you can verify that by looking at your contribution history). My guess is that you somehow forgot to hit "save". So, yes, you should re-post your question. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:10, 18 September 2017 review of submission by WIREeditor

WIREeditor (talk · contribs)
- User:WIREeditor/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

OK - since my follow up showed up and my first query didn't I thought I'd better do it again!

I had a proposed page on the English artist Walter Hoyle rejected on the grounds that 'This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. ... Relies entirely too much on primary sources and any third party coverage seems routine or minimal in terms of the subject'. However, I'd note the following points. (1) My first reference is to a chapter dedicated to Hoyle in a book published by the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, within the last two years. That seems neither routine nor minimal, and I'd note that the other 7 artists with chapters in that volume all have Wikipedia entries. (2) In the references and under 'external links' I cite the online, searchable catalogues of the V&A, the British Museum and the Bibliotheque National in Paris. Surely, for an artist, such e-catalogues count as significant secondary sources demonstrating notability? (3) In the body of the article I provided links to existing Wikipedia pages on the Great Bardfield Artists and St Mary Abchurch in London. Both of these make reference to Hoyle, and allowing those references to become links to additional information on the artist was a motivation for creating this page. That continues to seem like a good idea and a potential improvement to Wikipedia content. (4) I assume the mention in the comments of primary material relates to references to Exhibition Catalogues from the mid-twentieth century. Whether these are primary or secondary sources seems to me a moot point, but they do establish the contemporary importance of the artist. I can remove them if that helps, but it seems an odd thing to do.

I'd welcome suggestions for how my referencing could be improved, but I do feel that the stated reason for rejection fails against its own criteria and would ask that this is reconsidered. WIREeditor (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC) WIREeditor (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WIREeditor. After some cleanup, I accepted Walter Hoyle on the grounds that he meets WP:ARTIST criterion #4 (and arguably #3). Overall it's a fine start, but some passages could be improved. For example, it discusses him, his wife, and then "his children". Were they not "their children"? Did he have them with someone other than his wife? Some terms are used without sufficient explanation, such as "linocuts" and "lino". --Worldbruce (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:20, 18 September 2017 review of submission by Cozy1626

Cozy1626 (talk · contribs)

Hi, I submitted the article 8/23 and have been waiting for the review for more than 3 weeks. Is this still under review without any issues that I need to handle? Would it be possible to let me know when I can expect to receive an answer? Thank you for your effort. I look forward to seeing my article published soon.

Cozy1626 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This draft is the subject of a question asked on September 19. A response was given there. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:56:23, 18 September 2017 review of submission by Schin10301

Schin10301 (talk · contribs)
- Sigmund abeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you tell me or help me add this wiki url to google search engine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Abeles Schin10301 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs to either be reviewed or remain unreviewed for 90 days before it is indexed in search engines. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]