User talk:Crystele.Trevisan

Thomson Video Networks
Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. You gave no references at all, and your external links were all to company sites (note that in any case, only one external link to the main site is permitted), and without references we cannot verify what you state
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: provides video compression and processing solutions... based on advanced compression algorithms... solutions include... aims at obtaining a bit-rate reduction of up to 50 percent compared to the current state of the art&mdash; it's all about what you are trying to sell.
 * There is little about the company itself other than what it sells and a bit of history. How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors?
 * You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your company is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

I'll post the deleted text here shortly for you to work on out of the line of fire  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Status and Advice
Happening to come across this, I checked your sandbox version; it is not promotional, and I therefore acting as an editor, not an administrator, moved it to mainspace. That does not mean it was satisfactory, just that there was no valid reason for speedy deletion. I think it can be assuming that a major division of a major company now independent has a reasonable claim to significance.

However, Jim's comments do correctly indicate the problems with the article. Some I fixed: the article uses corporate jargon, with excessive duplication, and I did some copyediting to make it read more compactly in ordinary English with less use of the corporate name, and with less duplication. Some you must fix: It must show actual notability according to WP:CORP with references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. I advise you to fix the problem, and do this very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process, which it will, unless properly sourced; unless there are good sources, it will be impossible to defend it. I've gone a little out of the way to help,and i would not like to see my work wasted.  DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC