User talk:Fdabaghi

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because Not reasons for deletion, but writing everything as lists instead of prose looks awful. Better to write a sentence or two mentioning a couple of major clients with refs than having a shopping list of all of them. Also, some of the refs are bare urls.
 * it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, social media 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. Although you referenced the text, several of the sources were simply repeating what the company had told them, and were not genuinely independent third-party commentary.
 * it's all about what the company does, little about the company itself other than locations. To show notability you need hard facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits. You mention these in the infobox, but there are no referenced facts in the text
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. You have an awards section, but no criticism of the company, you say what the company sells, but don't tell us what makes it notable, and you have a list of clients which seems intended to be promotional.

I notice that your account and those of two previous editors are single-purpose accounts with no other areas of editing. You should be careful about using multiple accounts, although so far they don't appear to have been misused. However, they do suggest that you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, which you must declare.

In particular, if you are an employee of the company or otherwise remunerated on its behalf, you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice. Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, 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 receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, 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 I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. It's not the worse I've seen, and if you want to try again, I'll post the deleted text to a user subpage for you to work on, just let me know. Note that you need to declare a COI as described above first though Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply
Hi Jim,

I am a connected user but not paid. Does this work to get a copy of the text and try again?

Thank you, Freddy Fdabaghi (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Freddy. Note that it's only chance that I saw this message; if you want me to see a message on your talk page, you should start it with a link to my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~ when you post it, and that will alert me.


 * Thank you for the declaration, you will need to move it to the article talk page when it is recreated. I'll post the deleted text here shortly. In addition to my comments above, note that the shopping list of clients looks spammy, and as an MoS thing, headings shouldn't have a reference included, it should be in the text that follows Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)