User talk:Grantposell

Vodio
Hi, thanks for message. I actually only deleted your article once, not "several times", although it was previously deleted by admin Sergecross73. 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. 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. At least four of your five supposed refs are to your own website, not an independent third-party source.
 * it's all about what the company does, little about the company itself other than its location and a bit of history. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits. None of these was mentioned in your text
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * 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 your company and its products
 * Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: focuses on innovation... special focus on creating and implementing... pioneer the software

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We are working to make a corporate page and need the approval&mdash;it is not permitted to edit on behalf of a company or organisation, only as an individual, see also ownership of content.
 * 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 organisation 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.
 * It is clear that you have a financial stake directly or indirectly in promoting this topic. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization, directly or indirectly, to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. 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 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. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.