User talk:Dillan (Mindstate Design Labs)

This is Dillan (Mindstate Design Labs)'s talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mindstate Design Labs (August 17)

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

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:Mindstate Design Labs 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.

RangersRus (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hello RangersRus (talk · contribs), thank you for reviewing my draft so quickly! I understand that I was not applying the correct criteria for sources. I made the following changes:
  :1) I re-ordered to more prominent placement the four articles that already met all four criteria (Time, Fast Company, Insider, and Popular Mechanics) to make sure that the whole entry was supported by articles that meet all four criteria.
  :2) I added one source (Fierce Biotech) that also meets all four criteria.
  :3) I deleted two sources (*Futurism* and *Microdose") that likely do not meet the "reliable" criteria.
  :4) I left as supporting one article that meets all criteria including in-depth coverage but is in newsletter form and behind a paywall (Washington Post), and 9 articles that are not as in-depth but meet the reliable, secondary, and independent criteria (TechCrunch*, *WSJ*, *Axios*, a second *Insider* article, *Bloomberg*, *Vice*, *GenEngNews*, and *The Atlantic*)
  :5) I also left as supporting two articles that meets the in-depth, secondary, and independent criteria but may not meet the reliable criteria (Lucid News, a niche outlet, and Big Think, which would be regarded as having borderline reliability, but this article does contain significant detail and research.)
  :I think the five articles in category 1) and 2) are appropriate for Wikipedia's guidelines, and the remaining articles are helpful as secondary support. Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect, or if anything else needs to be corrected. Thanks! Dillan (Mindstate Design Labs) (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]