User talk:Frankamsterdam

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. Multiple problems. I deleted your article because
 * 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 organisation company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, 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 organisation  claims or interviewing its management. Your text was mostly either unreferenced or referenced to sites that are not independent third party sources, such as the company itself, interviews with the owner, press releases and the like.
 * There is little there to show that the company meets the notability criteria linked above. It's all what you are trying to sell. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: These shifts saw a change in fortunes for Usabilla as customer numbers grew from 9,000 in 2011, to 25,000 in 2013. Usabilla Live's feedback buttons saw a record exposure of 2 Billion monthly button displays in December 2013, with growth forecasted to continue into the future. Usabilla Live for Email launched in February 2014, affirming Usabilla's focus on feedback technologies... The product has various subscription options, ranging from smaller plans to full blown enterprise solutions... and so on, it's largely a sales pitch
 * You have a "reception" section including cherry-picked quotes. this isn't a beauty competition.


 * it's all about what the company organisation sells, little about the company organisation itself other than locations.
 * there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. That's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to affiliated sites.
 * the article was created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source.
 * You have a conflict of interest when editing this article, and you must declare it. Since you work directly or indirectly for the organisation, 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, 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:    . Please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

You must formally declare your COI before anything else. You should then make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find adequate independent third party sources. Also read this important guidance

Once you have done the above, if you still wish to proceed, let me know and I'll post an edited version as a draft page Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Jimfbleak Could you post an edited version as a draft page? Thank you

Frankamsterdam (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've restored an edited version here. I made these edits. For obvious reasons, articles about companies and products are treated by patrollers with great suspicion, so you will need to make sure that you address all the points above for the article to survive in main space. Having it as a draft may buy you a bit of time. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Jimfbleak I edited the draft version to comply with the guidelines. Could you check and see if this is done correctly? Thank you

Frankamsterdam (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's better, but there are still unsourced claims presented as facts. I think replacing "tool" by "solution" made it sound more promotional, since the latter is sales talk like "offer" when you mean "sell". Most of your text is unsourced, or sourced only to the company or affiliated/non-reliable sources. The claims made for your products in particular are completely unsupported by independent third party sources, and are bound to be seen as promotional as they stand Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Jimfbleak I edited the draft version again to comply with the guidelines. Could you check and see if this is done correctly? Thank you Frankamsterdam (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits. I don't think it's particularly spammy now, although without any financials you may struggle to show notability. At some stage you'll just have to move it to article space and see what happens Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)