Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2016 July 7

= July 7 =

00:03:15, 7 July 2016 review of submission by Dmulan123
Hello - I have been working on an article since April (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Suiteness). SwisterTwister was the last person to review it but declined it because it lacked notability. I have now added new citation including an in-depth feature in TechCrunch. I reached out to him about the changes but haven't heard back. The article now has 16 citations from credible third-party sources including The New York Times, Tech Crunch, The Wall Street Journal, Conde Nast Traveler, LA Times and Robb Report. Hope it qualifies to be approved! Would really appreciate it if you could consider a re-review! Dmulan123 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Dmulan123

12:51:46, 7 July 2016 review of submission by Oneirovates
Hello there. This was my first submission and although I have tried to fulfill all the rules of article creation, it seems I failed. The reviewer's only comment is: See WP:NOTGUIDE My article is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, so I guess there is something in the way I wrote it that gives such an impression. The problem is that I do not know what that something is. Any clarification is welcome.

Oneirovates (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My criticism of the draft would be that it fails to establish via independent third-party sources that the term and concept of "in-application questions" have been considered to be notable by experts in the field, such as software testers. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

16:17:39, 7 July 2016 review of submission by MaryGaulke
Hi! This draft was rejected on grounds of insufficient notability. The subject has been the focus of extensive profiles in Fortune, Bloomberg, and the San Francisco Business Times; his career moves have earned news coverage in Recode and The New York Times; and all of these pieces are used as references within the article. As far as I can tell, he clears the bar set by WP:BIO. Could someone please take a look and help clarify where there is room for improvement here?

FYI, I have a conflict of interest: I work for a communications agency for which Splunk (the company of which Sullivan used to CEO) is a client. However, I never assist clients with creating an article if I don't believe that the subject has encyclopedic value. If nothing else, I would really appreciate any feedback that can help me realign my expectations for future endeavors.

Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)