User talk:Angelina Lee

Welcome

 * }

May 2011
Hello Angelina Lee. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 123RF


A tag has been placed on 123RF, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo 123rf.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Logo 123rf.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for message. I think you may be confusing several things
 * I did not send you an email
 * I did not say you were connected to the company, that was Suffusion of Yellow. However, since all your edits have related to that company it seems highly likely. If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. In particular, if you work directly or indirectly for the company, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the company you are writing about, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:    . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. However, concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.
 * I only nominated the article for deletion, DGG actually deleted it as non-notable and promotional


 * There is nothing in the article to show that the company meets the notability guidelines. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits, but your article was basically only about what you sell.
 * You need to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, social media, press releases and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Few, if any, of your refs were anything more than press releases
 * It was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact in the last version you edited include: The 123RF.com platform gives photographers, illustrators and designers a chance to showcase their photographs... allowing them the space to promote and sell their creations to an international audience... website that offers faster response plus a modernized and sleeker interface furnished with several added features...  and so on. The deleted version had been cleaned up a bit, but was still just touting your product while telling us nothing about the company.

I've linked to users DGG and Suffusion of Yellow in the message above, since to some extent I'm answering for them, and they may wish to add comments Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't add much to what JimfBleak said so thoroughly and accurately. WP does not publish advertisements, so unless there is prospect of an actual article, there is no reason to undelete. do not undelete advertisements. In order for there to be an articles, you need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Every one of the references in  the article is a press release, a slightly disguised press release, or the firm's own site.
 * In any case, the TOU are not optional.
 * But there is one thing WP did wrong here: the article should have been removed back in 2011, There are a few hundred thousand similar articles we need to identify and remove.  DGG ( talk ) 13:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

New version
I'm not going to list it for deletion, a it is not hopelessly promotional. However, it does not really have the references necessary to show notability, which must be references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements:
 * Ref 1 is not substantial coverage, just a paragraph in a article about a number of different unconnected startups
 * Ref 2 is not substantially about the company, and not a reliable source
 * Ref 3 is about the company, but it's essentially a press release: a promotional interview where the founder says whatever he wishes
 * Ref 4is the company homepage, and not a reliable source for notability.
 * Ref 5, 6 & 7 are not about the company, and merely mention it.

If it were moved to mainspace, it would most likely be deleted. If the firm as as important as the article implies, there should be better references.  DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)