Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Alpha3031 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)
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.
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:OnePageCRM 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.
Hello, Anastasia (Nastia)!
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! Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alpha3031, thank you for taking the time to review my draft.
Could you please help me better understand how I can improve it before re-submitting?
I removed anything promotional and added several independent and reliable sources that mention OnePageCRM. Forbes and Forbes Advisor covered OnePageCRM as well as The Irish Independent, The Times, Local Enterprise Ireland Office, and also TechCrunch.
Some of them are globally known (Forbes and TechCrunch). Others are well known and established in Ireland, like Chambers Ireland, the federation of chambers of commerce for the Republic of Ireland, that officially endorsed OnePageCRM on their website (the link is provided in the references).
Hi Anastasia, I see Theroadislong has also provided some feedback, and I would agree with their comment that we would primarily look at awards that have Wikipedia articles already. Additionally, for an article about a company or organisation, in most cases even if we had those types of awards, the sources still need to pass the criteria.
Regarding my own assessment of the sources, to start with Forbes, unfortunately Forbes Contributor and Advisor articles are generally not considered suitable for use on Wikipedia, due to differences in editorial standards compared to staff written articles. I do see you have added a few new articles from the Times as well, I will review those articles when able, and let you know once I have done so.
As for the two articles you've linked on other CRM software, they were created a long time ago, and unfortunately the criteria for organisations, companies and products have tightened up a lot since then. I can tell you immediately that they would not be accepted for publication today if the sources in the article are all that exist. The reason those arm ticles are still published is because once published, articles do not get re-reviewed frequently (after all, re-reviewing all 6 million articles regularly would be a significant time sink). Those articles will most likely be deleted if no additional sources could be found. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so one thing I'll want to note about these sources is that they're mostly interviews. You can see an essay with more detailed guidance at Wikipedia:Interviews, but the gist of it is that while interviews published in reliable sources can be used to support content in an article in an WP:ABOUTSELF manner, they're not suitable to write the whole article from. There are two tests for independence in the criteria (WP:ORGIND), independence of the author and of the content, and interviews for the most part fail the second of those tests. This will likely apply to the Guardian podcast as well.
The Webb article (that's ref 23 for now) on the other hand, that paragraph talks about Fitzgerald heading out on a tour. There are multiple reasons why we wouldn't consider that to meet the criteria, it's somewhat routine coverage, there's little if any secondary evaluation or analysis, and with short blurbs like this, whether it meets WP:ORGIND is also a little doubtful.
The best thing to do would be to avoid interviews and articles primarily composed of quotations and near-quotations, and find a few sources (usually we recommend 3) that clearly meet the 4 criteria mentioned in the template above. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
