Talk:Good Store

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information. This article was accepted from this draft on 18 June 2026 by reviewer Cabrils (talk · contribs). Companies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

Hello – here are the three best sources that establish notability of the subject, according to WP:NCORP.

• The Inc. article is significant (extensive description and interview with the CEO), independent (not connected to Good Store), reliable (published source from an established magazine), and secondary (synthesizes information from primary sources).
• The Entrepreneur article is significant (extensive description and interview with one of the co-founders), independent (not connected to Good Store), reliable (published source from an established magazine), and secondary (synthesizes information from primary sources).
• The The Cool Down article is significant (extensive description and interview with one of the co-founders), independent (not connected to Good Store), reliable (published source from an established online newsletter), and secondary (synthesizes information from primary sources).

I have removed details with less reliable sources from the page. The exception is one YouTube video, in which one of the co-founders announces how much money a specific campaign raised for charity.

I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject.

Thank you! Powzawow (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:NCORP) but presently it is not clear that it does.
  As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject.
  Please note that some of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, press releases, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc).
  Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject, you must declare that on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). In instances of a conflict of interest, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of such a conflict. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial (see WP:PROMO), which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV).
  Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page.
  It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
  It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NCORP criteria #3, because XXXXX").
  Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)Reply