HelixUnwinding

Please note the COI disclosure on my user page

Feel free to ask below if there are any questions or concerns. HelixUnwinding (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: BRYTER (July 12)

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

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:BRYTER 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.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, HelixUnwinding! 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! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, @Johannes Maximilian. I am a native German speaker, but must admit that I was somewhat sleep deprived when writing this. I’m happy to re-do a ce, and am rather embarrassed about that, sorry.

Regarding notability, I would say that the following are clearly establishing notability:

Big German newspaper of record:

FAZ

More FAZ, going further in depth (in a non-business publication

Non-standard business coverage:

Pitch Deck

SIGCOV for last (?) funding round

Other:

Charitable Work

International Expansion

(not included: standard announcements, such as juve)

I would argue that those (at the very least together, arguably separately) are enough to establish notability.

Would you be willing to elaborate if you disagree with this? HelixUnwinding (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:BRYTER has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:BRYTER. Thanks! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciate you taking the time! If the draft is approved, I would re-do the copy edit, and would therefore appreciate a heads-up if you are planning on doing so, just so I can ensure that what leaves the draft space is of encyclopaedic quality. While I could blame the visual editor (and appreciate your comment), it’s my job to check, particularly as I have encountered that issue before when citing German sources.

Notability

I agree that Footnotes 1, 4, 5 and 6 are mostly trivial coverage, and agree with your assessment of 10.

I would argue that Fn. 2 goes beyond the standard coverage, discussing the process in an unusual degree of depth, and therefore counts towards independent significant coverage, in line with Wikipedia:SIGCOV. It is written by a business reporter (who used to work for Wired), and goes into some detail. Definitely industry news with the usual pitfalls, but I would consider it for “partial credit” at least.

Fn. 3: same as 2, but clearer in my opinion. While the coverage isn’t on an academic level, it does include a significant amount of details beyond the routine coverage exclusion for ORGTRIV (of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business), going instead into analytical detail beyond the usual regarding the future of the company. It also isn’t business-specific news (but of course part of the news section), which is a decent indicator for me.

I was more hesitant about Fn. 7, but after a second look, you are right, it does go beyond trivial in some cases.

Fn. 8 goes beyond the very routine coverage by discussing capital use and specific expansion plans, but the significant non-routine coverage is limited to a few paragraphs, so it won’t make or break this.

Fn. 9 discusses an expansion into the US market, and while it includes routine coverage, the “meat” of the story is the general expansion, something that (context not in source) is not that usual for German legal tech.

Fn. 11 has multiple paragraphs primarily covering Bryter, and while much of it includes the executive, the company name is used 5 Times within the article, and Grupp is covered/cited as the executive, indicating that the coverage is more about the company than about him.

In total, while it’s obviously not at the upper end of notability, I would argue that it does go way beyond what is required for and has been approved with other company articles (including one of my own, which - to be fair - was questionable enough that it probably shouldn’t have been approved).

I have taken the liberty of responding here, I hope that’s ok for you. Thank you in advance for the very thorough review, it is greatly appreciated. HelixUnwinding (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and I also found this one: [1] HelixUnwinding (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johannes Maximilian, I also found this. While funding-related, it goes slightly beyond the depth where WP:ORGTRIV would be a clear issue (product use case discussion, looking into the expected shares ownership).

I‘m not sure about this one and pieces like it. While I think we already have notability, I wonder if those are citeable (perhaps as Expertsps)? HelixUnwinding (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)