Draft talk:Centric Consulting

Feedback after 2nd decline

Hi @AllWeKnowOfHeaven thank you for taking time to review the revised resubmission of Centric Consulting's attempt at an article. While I addressed the previous general feedback as best I could, making the draft thoroughly neutral (and removing company or promotional website citations), replacing with better third party nonpartisan sources (like Gartner's, Fast Company, Newsweek, Business Journal, and trade magazines like CIO and TechWeek)--focusing on publications that are in Wikipedia and considered stronger--and cutting down to focus on the strongest, verifiable elements, but it received the same general feedback in this subsequent decline. What I'm wondering is, what else can Centric Consulting can add to this page or that I can do a better job of, to get approved? There is one historic alliance -- working with Dayton Power & Light (AES Ohio) -- that I felt makes a good case but as an older story it was challenging to find non-paywalled and non-internal articles to verify that story. As a now larger size company in many locations in the U.S. and India, with multiple partnerships, awards, and increasing coverage, what else can they do to improve on for Wikipedia approval? Thanks for your time! Craigary (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Craigary: You did great rewriting the draft to be more neutral. The main reason I declined it, is that most of the sources seem to be routine coverage of companies. The notability guideline for companies requires a little more than the types of sources in the draft right now. AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks much, that is helpful actually. I think next steps would be to find more of those kinds of sources, or pause these submissions until they can collect more notable coverage for this page. Thanks. Craigary (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)