Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2017 September 2

= September 2 =

06:05:18, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Don.carlos.ch
Made 9 reliable references, e.g. a TV station's report (TV Nova, Czechia), print magazines (Playboy, VOLO), online magazine (Artmageddon) and official independent databases. Why is this not good enough?


 * OK, we're trying to establish notability. For that, we need some in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Which three of the current references would you consider the best? If you've read WP:NACTOR, how do you think your sources align with those guidelines?  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

06:52:04, 2 September 2017 review of submission by RashadFarroq
RashadFarroq (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Please grant us access to be allowed to have a Wikipedia page for Rashad Farooq
 * Hello, Rashad. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Before posting here, I declined your submission for the reasons stated on the draft itself.  You will really need to demonstrate that you have received significant coverage from reliable sources before your autobiography will be accepted for publication here.  And a single two-minute clip on a local television station is not going to be sufficient.  On a different matter, writing autobiographies is extremely discouraged here on Wikipedia.  If you haven't already done so, you might want to read WP:AUTO, which will explain some of our concerns about autobiographies.  I hope this response has been helpful.  If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

08:48:57, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Karlweber-kw
What should I improve specifically in the article? Karlweber-kw (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Karl. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  Later today, I'll leave some comments on your draft (and will notify you when I do that).  NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * please, help me. What should I improve specifically in my article?. Thank you in advance NewYorkActuary

14:57:00, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Giznej
As I mentioned earlier, I do not agree. There are many good reasons to have two different articles on "mathematical optimization" and the subclass "linear programming". By the same reasons there should be also an article on "Multi-objective Optimization" and also an article on "Multi-objective linear programming".


 * Hi . I have requested comment on the draft at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

23:51:26, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Okc97
I submitted this article for review almost a month ago now. When will the review be finally finished? I would like the page to be published and made available to the public as soon as possible please as I have created the page for someone who is very old and sick, and will pass away soon. It would be greatly appreciated if the review of this page could be expedited. Thank you.

Okc97 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Okc. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.  We've been very backlogged here this summer and it probably would have taken another week or so for your submission to work itself to the front of the queue.  But I took a quick look at it and saw that there wasn't much need for waiting that extra week or so.  I've declined to accept the submission for the reasons that I've stated on the draft itself.  I recognize that this is not the result you were hoping for and, if you have any questions, feel free to ask.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)