Draft talk:BullionStar

Requesting restoration to mainspace

Hi! thanks for taking the time to review this page. I saw @Whyiseverythingalreadyused moved it to draft space over concerns about long-term single-purpose-account editing going back to 2017, and I appreciate that this kind of pattern is worth flagging and taking seriously.

For transparency: I have no conflict of interest here. No connection to the company or its predecessors on this page. My interest is simply in seeing the article evaluated on its current merits.

That said, I wanted to gently make the case that the article itself seems to stand on solid footing: it's sourced to independent, reliable outlets, CNN, The Business Times, SCMP, The Straits Times, and VnExpress, plus company references. My hope is that we can look at the content and sourcing on their own merits, separate from the past editing history, and figure out together whether anything's actually missing before this could return to mainspace.

If there are specific gaps in sourcing, neutrality, or notability that still need work, I'd genuinely love to hear them so I can help address them directly.

I'll leave this open for a few days in case anyone wants to weigh in, and if there's no response I may bring it to Wikipedia:Requested moves just to get a bit more visibility. Thanks again for your patience with this!Pristine-Radio (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:Pristine-Radio, I came across your draft and thought I might be able to help you out while getting some practice evaluating notability. The relevant notability guideline for this subject is WP:NCORP.

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

I'll just go through your references in the order they are listed in the draft.

1. The Straits Times. I couldn't actually find this one (it would be helpful to reviewers and readers if you added URLs to your citation) but I found a blog post on the BullionStar website stating this is a newspaper interview with the company CEO. This would certainly be significant coverage in a reliable newspaper, but unfortunately fails independent. N

2. BullionStar website, controlled by the subject so fails independent. N

3. Human Resources Online. Has a role byline; these generally make for unreliable sources because no author's reputation is staked on the content, therefore they are used to launder company press releases and such things (and it does seem to be based largely on a press release and quotes from the CEO). N

4. BullionStar website, see 2. N

5. South China Morning Post. Reliable and independent but I believe the few sentences about BullionStar in this article would be considered WP:CORPTRIV, so this would probably fail significant. N

6. VNExpress I think this might be one of your best shots in terms of establishing significant coverage, but the section is pretty small. Y (possibly)

7. CNN. Just a passing mention again, fails significant. N

8. Business Times (1). Passing mention, fails significant. N

9. Business Times (2). Independent, reliable, and significant coverage. Y

Notability isn't based on the sources that are in the article, but the sources that exist in real life, so if you can locate some more sources that fit the criteria, your draft will be in a better position. Also, I'm not an AfC reviewer, so experienced editors may disagree with how I evaluated the sources, plus notability is just one of the criteria for article acceptance through AfC, but this is roughly the kind of evaluation a reviewer will put your sources through.

Since I put the work in to undertake this review, I hope that you will do something for me: please do not engage in any more AI-generated expansions of articles. I came across several among your recent contributions which had to be reverted. I understand wanting to build a history of contributions prior to submitting a draft, but doing it that way only contributes to a history of violating policy. The so-called "newcomer tasks" to expand sections and add sources are actually pretty difficult and unintentionally encourage this kind of shortcutting, so as long as it ends here it's not a big deal. Good luck with your draft submission! ^purring_maggot (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for taking the time to go through the sources so cautiously, this is significantly helpful , and I appreciate you explaining the reasoning behind each one (especially the CORPTRIV and independence issues , which I hadn't weighed properly).

I'll keep looking for coverage that's independent, secondary and I'll hold off on resubmitting until I have something stronger to build around.

On the AI generation point - understood , and I won't continue with that approach .

One more thing, out of curiosity about how this is applied in practice - I noticed BullionByPost has an article with some similarly local/trade press sourcing (Birmingham Post, The Drum, award listings). How would that stack up against NCORP? I am trying to understand the standard better. Pristine-Radio (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's see about BullionByPost. Local media is OK, as long as it's combined with some wider media interest, plus The Birmingham Post has regional distribution so let's not write it off per WP:LOCALCORP just yet. However, The Birmingham Post and The Birmingham Mail are owned by the same company, and these stories: were published on the same day, have the same author, and are basically the same story. These definitely wouldn't count as two sources for the purpose of establishing notability.

Per WP:TRADES trade publications indeed should be viewed critically when it comes to establishing notability; probably the 2 articles about the ad campaign would not count. Non-notable awards won by the company are also WP:CORPTRIV so they aren't helping, aside from possibly the IoD award which was reported on by regional business press (i.e. not just a link to the award organization's website, so at least 1 independent publication actually cares about this award existing).

So we're down to two stories from Birmingham Post, two stories from The Telegraph, and one from the BBC (quite short and mysteriously no byline on this one). An important bit these stories have that BullionStar's sources don't is that most of the articles are about BullionByPost, rather than just mentioning it briefly in a list of several other businesses, or just to contextualize whatever they're trying to say about the gold industry. However, also important to note per WP:GNG is that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

Arguably the BBC story is not WP:SIGCOV since it's pretty shallow: it covers one good day of business activity in this company's history and barely even describes the company otherwise. If you discount that, we're left with the Birmingham Post, The Telegraph, and Business Desk (the IoD award story). Just based on the sources in the article, I think this subject is teetering on the very edge of notability and the author(s) have padded it out with unnecessary sources (the aforementioned twin articles from the Post and Mail, the two stories about the ad campaign which nearly have identical content, their customer reviews page from eKomi??) to make it appear more notable than it is.

In fact, if you look in the history of that article, you'll see that an editor tagged it for proposed deletion back in 2018 based on notability, but that tag only requires 1 person to disagree with it, so someone else removed it. If the article was taken to AfD (hell, I might do it, since I've put in all this work already) I suspect it would be in danger of deletion. This all might spell bad news for your draft, but I hope it helps in some way. ^purring_maggot (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)