 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,169 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
Submission declined on 11 January 2025 by Stuartyeates (talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. |  |
| Submission declined on 2 August 2024 by SafariScribe (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. 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: Declined by SafariScribe 9 months ago.
| |
| Submission declined on 30 April 2024 by Xoak (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Declined by Xoak 12 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 29 April 2024 by Theroadislong (talk). This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. Declined by Theroadislong 12 months ago. | |
| Submission declined on 27 April 2024 by Umakant Bhalerao (talk). This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. 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: Declined by Umakant Bhalerao 12 months ago.
| |
| Submission declined on 26 April 2024 by Greenman (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. Declined by Greenman 12 months ago. | |
Comment: There's a swathe of primary sources here which need to be weeded. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: The OP has removed primary and unreliable sources upon my instructions. And I myself have cleaned up the promo bits and copy edited the article. Also trimmed some references. I've put some of them in the talk page. IMO the company might meet borderline notability but I'll leave that to someone else to review. @Fintechfraser: you may resubmit the draft now and someone else will review it. Regards. X (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Linkedin.com and Spotify are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Thank you for your WP:COI declaration. However, the framing of the submission is still promotional and not suitable as is. See also WP:SOLUTION. Greenman (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 | |
| Company type | Privately held company |
|---|---|
| Industry | |
| Founded | January 27, 2021 in London, England |
| Founders | Fraser Stewart, Gary Stewart |
| Headquarters | 128 City Road, , |
| Products | Lyfeguard |
| Services | |
| Website | lyfeguard |
Lyfeguard Limited is a British financial technology company headquartered in London. It offers a digital platform that allows individuals to store and manage personal documents and information, and provides tools for financial advisers to access and monitor client data. The company operates in the financial planning, digital estate management, and Open finance sectors.[1]
- ^ "Britons urged to get 'expert guidance' on pensions as many are not planning for retirement". Express. 2024-12-12. Retrieved 2025-04-23.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search
- 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.