Draft talk:AuditBoard

Declaring COI for proposed article

I am a connected contributor proposing an article about the company AuditBoard. Any feedback is appreciated. SBCornelius (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Qcne, thank you for taking the time to review my article. I was hoping you might be able to provide some additional feedback. If the issue is tone or sourcing, I'm happy to continue revising until we get to an acceptable version. However, if you think the issue is the topic's notability in general, I'd like to know that before undertaking any revisions that focus on tone or citations. Thank you and any feedback is appreciated.SBCornelius (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Seeking a final consensus on notability

Hi @Rht bd, @AllWeKnowOfHeaven and @Qcne,

Thank you all for taking the time to review the previous drafts and provide feedback. I really appreciate the time. I wanted to follow up by asking for some clarity and, if possible, a clear consensus on notability for this topic.

Across the prior draft reviews, I’ve made efforts to address concerns around tone, structure, and sourcing. However, it’s not entirely clear to me whether the primary barrier at this point is the current quality and depth of sourcing or a broader determination that the subject may not meet Wikipedia’s standards regardless of additional incremental improvements.

If you’re willing, it would be very helpful to understand whether you believe the subject could meet notability with stronger or more substantial independent coverage, or the available coverage is unlikely to support notability at this time.

Thanks again for your time and thoughtful feedback. I appreciate any additional guidance you’re able to share. SBCornelius (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@SBCornelius: I rejected the sumbission because I was unconvinced with the sources. All of these sources are either based on press releases or somehow connected to the subect. Some are routine coverage like acquisition, merger and fundraising. Overall it seems that the company is not independently notable, they pays a lot to get coverage either via press releases or paid news. @AllWeKnowOfHeaven: is blocked for sockpuppetry. @Qcne: do you have any suggestion for the submission? Rht bd (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rht bd! Thank you for the feedback and update about AllWeKnowOfHeaven. @Qcne, I'd be grateful for any feedback you have as well. Even if it is just to agree with Rht bd, I'd love to have multiple editors' opinions so I can have confidence in the consensus before moving on. Thank you both! SBCornelius (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @SBCornelius. I agree - the sources are mostly churnalism. qcne (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@QcneThank you for weighing in! SBCornelius (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)