User talk:Nelfir

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. Most of your text is unreferenced, apart from the awards section, where many of the links do not meet our criteria, and turn out to be reviews rather than factual independent third-party sources anyway. I note you don't post any limitations, criticisms or negative reviews
 * I can't see any evidence of notability as defined above anyway. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits. As far as we are told, you are three people with no stated location or country, so presumably no offices either (or you didn't see it as important compared to promoting your company
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Most of it was spam, but some examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: creating an exceptionally intuitive user experience... providing high quality assets... quickly gained momentum... theme that would become Artbees’ lead website-building tool, made for every niche and sector...&mdash; and so on, spam, spam, spam.
 * 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, as many of yours are
 * 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. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
 * Your edits indicate that you have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. Thank you for declaring your interest. 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.
 * If you work directly or indirectly for the company, or are otherwise being compensated by a person, group, company or organization, directly or indirectly, to use Wikipedia to promote their interests, you 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. 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.