User talk:Drewski720

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The first and last sources seem okay, but the others don't contribute towards notability, and two qualifying sources isn't quite enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Washington Speakers Bureau and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and providing specific feedback. Before I proceed, what about the 3rd source? It's the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). I came into this thinking the WSJ citation was the best I could find in terms of meeting those 4 points of criteria. To your point, we may still need more than this, but I was hoping the WSJ citation would for sure help us build a foundation here. Drewski720 (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thank you for reviewing and providing specific feedback. Before I proceed, what about the 3rd source? It's the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). I came into this thinking the WSJ citation was the best I could find in terms of meeting those 4 points of criteria. To your point, we may still need more than this, but I was hoping the WSJ citation would for sure help us build a foundation here. Drewski720 (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the publication is obviously legit. I thought it was just routine business reporting based on a press release, but perhaps I was being harsh. I'll need to look at it again with better time, if it goes on to analyse or comment on things, beyond just the expected acquisition, then that could count as well. Leave it with me, I'll get back to you on that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. Yeah, that WSJ piece is better than I first thought, and with that I think we've got the WP:NCORP notability standard met, or at least close enough that I can accept this draft. I'll go and do that now. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Amazing! Thank you for your help and the detailed feedback! Drewski720 (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Drewski720! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Gheus were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Atomic Object and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gheus (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gheus Thank you for taking the time to review this submission and provide helpful feedback. I've gone ahead and (hopefully) fixed the issues with tone. As for the draft's references, I reviewed them all again and believe they each meet the 4-part criteria (namely the WSJ and NYT articles), but I could be wrong. If possible, please let me know which of these do not, and then I'll work to find a replacement or postpone this endeavor until more/better references are available. Thank you so much. Drewski720 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPTRIV and give me your two best sources about this topic. Gheus (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by HilssaMansen19 were:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Sounds like a promotional dictionary definition with only 3-4 line lead. Sources are not adequate either.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Atomic Object and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 11:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I hope to have resolved these two issues. Please let me know @HilssaMansen19. Drewski720 (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Your draft still sounds promotional.

• For example, this sentence: Atomic Object also opened office locations in Ann Arbor (2013), Chicago (2021), and Raleigh (2022). It follows an agile, co-located team model, with software project engagements typically ranging from $50,000 to over $1 million. It is promoting the company by saying where its locations are and prices of its services.
• The Notable coverage section is also promotional, because it cherry picks positive things about it, rather than explaining what the sources are saying in neutral tone. The section should also be called something like "Media coverage".
• It doesn't provide enough encyclopaedic information about the company. Its locations, prices, what the CEO does and current office practices can all change. We don't have any information about the company, other than who founded it, when and where.

Take a look at other software company articles as an example of how it should be done: Microsoft, Valve, Riot Games, and so on. The article doesn't need to be long as them, because those are huge companies with lots of notable products, but look at how the lede is written, headings, language, stuff like that. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Kovcszaln6 were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Possibly notable. Please see WP:FORBES and WP:ORGDEPTH.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Atomic Object and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kovcszaln6 Thank you for your help. I've reviewed each reference extensively in conjunction with WP:ORGDEPTH and conclude that the following provide "significant coverage." Can you please take another look at these four?

Reference 1 (MLive)

Reference 2 (Crain's Detroit Business)

Reference 3 (WDIV Local 4 News)

Reference 4 (Crain's Grand Rapids)

Reliability was also mentioned in the last review. I agree that Forbes shouldn't be considered reliable. I've added it for extra color (not for inherent notability). I can remove it, if preferred. Meanwhile, the four references above should all be considered reliable. Additionally, Reference 5 (The New York Times) and Reference 6 (The Wall Street Journal) are reliable, independent, and secondary, but I agree that neither provide significant coverage.

I've removed what was Reference 5 (Michigan Ross Center for Positive Organizations). I understand now that it's too promotional. I also removed what was Reference 2 (Michigan Economic Development Corporation) for the same reason.

Lastly, I added a new reference from a local publication called Concentrate Media (Reference 7). It's reliable, independent, secondary, and is on the borderline for providing significant coverage.

It's my understanding that we can still reach notability through a mix of references that (all together) are reliable, independent, secondary, and provide significant coverage. The first four references hit all these factors. The remaining four references hit on most but not all. I thought that was okay. But if we need to provide more, please let me know. Drewski720 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Sources 1 and 2 are good, but 3 and 4 are trivial and mostly quotes. Just to clarify: we need multiple (preferably at least 3) sources that are by themselves independent, reliable, secondary, and in-depth. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MCE89 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

• meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
• or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth
  

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jeremy Utley and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MCE89 (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@MCE89 Thank you for your review. Before this last submission, I went through an extensive process to ensure the second point you mentioned is well covered (citing multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which covers the subject in some depth). I would appreciate a second look and/or specific feedback.

And to help make this as easy as possible for you, sure, some of the citations hit on most (but not all) of the notability requirements. These are meant to support the article, not anchor it in notability. E.g., https://www.charterworks.com/ideaflow-utley-klebahn/ is reliable, independent, and secondary, but doesn't provide significant coverage.

But here are the list of citations that I'm confident provide the full anchoring of notability. Do I simply need to find more?

1. https://keenon.substack.com/p/episode-2088-jeremy-utley-on-how

2. https://www.rolandberger.com/en/Insights/Publications/Jeremy-Utley-on-prompting-GenAI-for-new-ideas.html

3. https://www.capgemini.com/se-en/insights/research-library/a-conversation-with-jeremy-utley/ Drewski720 (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Drewski720. Unfortunately interviews typically can't confer notability, as they involve the subject speaking about themselves and are therefore not independent sources. The pieces published by Roland Berger and Capgemini are also not necessarily published in reliable sources — a reliable source needs to have editorial controls and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which a consulting firm is unlikely to have in the form that we require for the "insights" publications that they release. Hopefully that makes sense, let me know if you have any other questions. MCE89 (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)