Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,451 pending submissions waiting for review. If the submission is accepted, then this page will be moved into the article space. If the submission is declined, then the reason will be posted here. In the meantime, you can continue to improve this submission by editing normally. Where to get help If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews. If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed. How to improve a draft Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia – a basic overview on how to edit Wikipedia. Help:Wikitext – how to use the markup Help:Referencing for beginners – how to include references Wikipedia:Article development – how to develop your article Wikipedia:Writing better articles – how to improve your article Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources 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. Add tags to your draft Editor resources Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs Reviewer tools Instructions · What links here · Harry Kind (talk: + · bio) · (log) · Copyvios report · reFill · Citation Bot · (Search: Google, Wikipedia) · Submitted 10 days ago by StockportRoquefort (talk: D · +) · Last edited 10 days ago by StockportRoquefort

Submission declined on 6 February 2026 by Athanelar (talk). This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that: provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis; are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight; are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, 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. This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources include: reputable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers. Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute. Replace any unreliable sources with high-quality sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for the material, it should be removed. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Where to get help If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews. If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed. How to improve a draft Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia – a basic overview on how to edit Wikipedia. Help:Wikitext – how to use the markup Help:Referencing for beginners – how to include references Wikipedia:Article development – how to develop your article Wikipedia:Writing better articles – how to improve your article Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources 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. Add tags to your draft Editor resources Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs Declined by Athanelar 3 months ago. Last edited by StockportRoquefort 10 days ago. Reviewer: Inform author. This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review.

Submission declined on 5 February 2026 by AdobongPogi (talk). This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that: provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis; are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight; are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, 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. Declined by AdobongPogi 4 months ago.

• Comment: Reflist is bloated with an appaling amount of bad sources (e.g., youtube) and clickbaity nonsense. Headlines like Harry Kind HITS OUT At Supermarket Executives and "German tradition can banish mould from your home according to expert" belong on the front page of the Daily Mail, not Wikipedia. Please thoroughly read WP:42 and understand what makes a good source that actually evidences notability. Athanelar (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Harry Kind is a British journalist, television presenter, and consumer affairs expert. He is known for his work as a reporter on BBC One’s Morning Live^[1][2][3] and his tenure as a spokesperson for the consumer champion Which?.

Kind first appeared on-screen as a regular consumer expert on Channel 4’s Steph’s Packed Lunch, subsequently becoming a frequent contributor to BBC Breakfast and Rip Off Britain^[4][5]. Kind has served as a supporting presenter for several consumer-specialist programmes, appearing alongside Natalie Cassidy in What’s the Big Deal?^[6] and Denise van Outen in How to Heat Your Home for Less This Winter^[7]. His work as an expert contributor also includes the Channel 5 documentaries Air Fryers Made Easy and Loyalty Cards: Are They Worth It?.^[8] He has contributed to the Financial Times^[9], BBC News,^[10] ITV News^[11] and BBC Local Radio^[12].

Between 2021 and 2024, Kind was a writer and campaigner for the consumer publication Which?.^[13] In 2023, he was announced as a co-host of the Get Answers podcast for the brand.^[14][15]

In 2024, Kind joined the reporting team of BBC One’s Morning Live, specialising in consumer rights, fraud prevention, and home improvements^[1][3].

In 2026, Kind was a contestant in ITV's reality quiz show Nobody's Fool.^[16]

Kind’s work in consumer journalism has been recognized by the British Society of Magazine Editors (BSME). He was a winner at the BSME Talent Awards in 2022^[17], 2023^[18] and 2024.^[19]

In 2008, Kind’s home in Wales was destroyed in a house fire. Although the family was at home at the time, no one was injured. Kind discussed the experience and its long-term impact in 2023 during an interview on The Silent Why podcast.^[20]