Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 November 6

= November 6 =

10:17:04, 6 November 2015 review of submission by Bbmeso
I have created an article Draft:Forest_Trail_Academy but rejected so many time from the editors. Please take a look at the article and suggest me the issues and if possible help me in creating it.
 * Very few reviews, and, I am afraid, no obvious improvement to meet our needs. Yes, it;s a school, but schools of this class do not have inherent notability. You need to show that. The best way is by excellence of referencing.
 * We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
 * If it ends up looking like any other entity, then we have no space for it at the moment because we on;y record that which passes WP:GNG. Fiddle   Faddle  11:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

15:06:54, 6 November 2015 review of submission by Integrator 30
Hi, thank you for your prompt attention. After an article about ComCloud was three times rejected for lack of indicators of importance of ComCloud solutions ("This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability"), several of my colleagues wrote the text exclusively for Wikipedia. I repeat, it was not taken from www.comcloud.com. I would ask you to tell me what to do now, after so much effort and the fourth rejection - what we need to do to be accepted?

Integrator 30 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks as though the copyright issue has gone. So walk forwards from there and look at sources.
 * "ComCloud allows service providers to build up their own public Cloud offerings.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" is ludicrous. FIVE references for one small fact is absurd and is WP:CITEKILL Choose the best and discard or repurpose the rest, please.
 * Lose 100% of the paid advertorial. That is not a reference. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
 * You have to pass WP:CORP and referencing is the way to show that. Once you think you do, resubmit
 * Are you affiliated with the organisation in any way? If so you need to be aware of WP:COI, and, if WP:PAID applies, to disclose it fully. Fiddle   Faddle  23:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very, very much for your help, after I modify necessary, I'll try one more time! Once again, thank you.

Request on 16:50:15, 6 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nmacs77
I'm trying to create the article "Ronnie Woo" as he is a host of his own TV show and the article has many references, yet it was declined. I'm a little confused as there are articles on wikipedia that have far less references and individuals with much less coverage, so it doesn't make sense as to what else needs to be included in order for this individual to get his wikipedia page created. Please advise on what else exactly I need to do in order to get this article cleared. Thank you so much for your help.

Nmacs77 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is natural to learn from and reason by example. You are correct, there are articles in Wikipedia that cite fewer sources and about individuals with less coverage. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress; it contains high quality and low quality content. Using the existence of poor content as an excuse for creating more content that doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is an argument that will cut little ice with experienced editors. See the essays Other stuff exists and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for further explanation.


 * The text of the draft has improved since the August version, and a number of new sources have been added, but the comments I made on that version still apply:

"Note that media appearances may be good PR, but they are not the route to an encyclopedia article. Nor does it matter who the subject has cooked for. Notability doesn't rub off on him simply because of association with celebrities or notable organizations. What is needed are independent sources that directly discuss him and his work, such as reviews in reliable sources of his TV performances or cookbook (if and when published). Wikipedia has two good (though far from perfect) biographies of TV chefs: Nigella Lawson and Marcus Wareing. You may find it revealing to contrast the draft with those articles. Compare sources such as:,, and to those cited in the draft."


 * Of the new sources: juice.clubw.com is a primary source interview - Woo talking about Woo with no independent anlysis; Facebook, la.eater.com, Out, and Huffpost are trivial mentions; Logo and FABLife are not independent, as they have a vested interest in promoting the host/guest of their program; and The Futon Critic is a press release from Logo. These kinds of sources do nothing to establish notability. Worldbruce (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

19:49:48, 6 November 2015 review of submission by DmitryPopovRU
Hello Editors and Administrators at Wikipedia. This article I have been working on for months now. This article is clearly notable and I need the attention of Russian Speaking Editors and reviewers to help with this. The article should be able to reach the Main Space and I don't plan to wait again for another deletion review when the last one was just a waste of time - Deletion_review It wasn't relisted, but no result. So it wasn't deleted as it is notable. Can I talk with an Administrator on this issue? What is wrong with the article? The article reaches general notability. It is about his Book and Non-Profit Organisation and not about a Single Event. The original Deletion was about him being a camera man and the next deletion review about the single event on him meeting his Birth Parents. The article has been improved. If this article reached the Main Space it would have no issues! Look at the sources on the page and if you can tell me what is wrong with it I would be more than happy to go over the sources I have managed to find. Thanks --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - The discussion to recreate ended in no consensus, which is not as bad as an outright decline, but as the reviewer's comment stated, don't resubmit at that venue without improving. And you have already discussed it with administrators, that's who were part of the discussion that was closed were. And the was the proper forum to discuss it in.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)