User:Davidwr/9 steps to a better AFC draft

Copied from this edit of Draft:Synopsys QuantumATK which will likely be deleted by WP:G13 eventually. The original author is Simpleware wiki.

• Comment: I saw this notice on the original reviewer's talk page. I'm not going to formally review it, but if I were, I would either decline it or take the time to do my own research to see if it should be rejected as a "non-notable" topic.
  Why would I decline it?
  First, the body text doesn't suggest that any reliable sources that are not connected to the company or the product have covered this product in-depth. This is the same reason it was declined on 13 August 2020 by Dan arndt
  Second, with the wall of references it's very difficult for me to individually visit all of them to see if, by some chance, the problem is with the article not with the topic itself.
  Here is how you might be able to fix it.
  Step 1: Become very familiar with Wikipedia's idea of what "notability" is. Read WP:Notability and any relevant special-notability guidelines listed on that page. Step 2: Realize that WP:Other stuff exists. That is, you might find articles about non-notable products on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean this product qualifies for an article, but rather, that the articles about those other products should probably be deleted. Step 3: Put yourself in the place of an objective, independent reviewer and ask yourself "is this product notable as Wikipedia defines it?" If the answer is "no" or "not yet" then stop.
  If the answer is "Yes" then continue:
  Step 4: Read WP:Your first article paying careful attention to any discussion about notability and the use of sources. Read the guidelines, policies, and other documents that it links to. Step 5: Read a few good articles that are about non-consumer-oriented software products or, if there are none, some about non-consumer-oriented business tools. While we don't expect your draft to be of "Good Article" quality, it will show you what is possible. Step 6: Create your draft.
  Before submitting it, do two more things:
  Step 7: Review it with a skeptical eye, asking yourself "If I were a reviewer who had the responsibility of keeping articles about non-notable topics out of Wikipedia, would I flag this as not notable or insufficient evidence of notability? If the answer is "yes, I would flag it" then go back to step 4 or even step 1.
  Step 8: Review the draft for things like neutral point of view, promotional content, undue weight given to non- or less-encyclopedic information, referencing style, and general copy-editing style.
  Step 9: If there are more than a handful of references, copy the "best 3" to the talk page. By "best 3" I mean the 3 that are most helpful in demonstrating the topic's notability.
  Once all of that is done, submit.
  Strictly speaking, only steps 1-3 and 6 are needed. Step 9 is extremely helpful and is likely to speed up any review. Steps 4-8 will result in a much-higher-quality draft. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)