User:Cullen328/Credible

Here is some specific advice about your draft, Xxx. Three of your references are to websites that host press releases, namely Business Wire and PR Newswire. Press releases are not independent, reliable sources, and experienced Wikipedia editors recognize that instantly. Many will be irritated at attempts to use such websites, so remove them and everything cited to them. Then, I noticed that the company's own website is used as a reference three times. A company website is not independent and therefore contributes nothing to notability. If notability is established through other sources, then the company website can be used only for utterly non-controversial facts like the CEO's name and the headquarters city. Cut way back on use of the company website. YouTube is rarely a reliable source, unless it is the official channel of an established news source. Remove that source. I started looking at references to known reliable sources. The Washington Post reference mentions the company in passing, and then quotes the CEO. That is not significant coverage, contributes nothing to notability, and should be eliminated. Then, I looked at the Bloomberg reference, and got a HTTP 404 error message. That does not inspire confidence. On to US News and World Report, where I found a fleeting mention of the company and a few quotes from the CEO. That reference contributes nothing to notability and is therefore worthless. Now to the CNBC source, where I got a "page not found" error. Now, to Marketwatch, which is a passing mention and a quote from the CEO. That reference is worthless for establishing notability. Now to Fortune, which summarizes some research by Credible, but says nothing about the company itself. That reference is worthless for establishing notability. Then there are an assortment of sources saying that the company raised various amounts of money from investors. This is routine, run-of-the-mill coverage for start-ups and does not establish notability. It is your job to establish notability and so far, you have not done so. Your references are sup-par, to be frank.

You are dealing with volunteers who are reviewing your article out of the goodness of their hearts. I have spent far more time looking at your draft than the average backloggd AFC reviewer would spend. Many of these people have hundreds or thousands of times more experience editing Wikipedia than you do, and yet you presume to try to educate them on our policies and guidelines, when they know them far better than you do. You have failed to provide the type of referencing that we expect for an article about a tech company. Pointing out that we have other mediocre articles is not a persuasive reason to accept another mediocre article. Experienced editors here work every day to either improve or delete other mediocre articles and are completely unimpressed by that argument, which we have heard hundreds of times before. It will not fly.

So, go back to the drawing board, and write a draft summarizing only the significant coverage that reliable, independent sources devote to this company as a business venture, not to its CEO as a quotable expert.