Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Commandant Quacks-a-lot, left the following feedback:
provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.
Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.
Currently, the sources are articles about other things or eents that may have trivial mentions about cyberinsider.com. Unless you can find sources devoted entirely to discussing the website (i.e. an article about what they do, etc), it may not be notable enough for wikipedia.
Next steps
Edit Draft:CyberInsider.com to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.
Hello, KnowHarb0r!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably not use that source, if I were you. It says it is wrtiien as a "Special," leading me to believe it is a promotional piece that CBJ has published without thoroughly vetting the claims in the article. (his other articles reinforce the idea that his work is promotional.) A lot of big, formerly always reliable companies have started using this strategy with independent authors being able to write any sort of nonsense they want. Forbes and Entrepreneur (magazine) do the same thing these days, too. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
