Jacquelyntwiki
|
Reply
editHi and welcome, thanks for message. I deleted your article after its nomination by another admin 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 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. Many of your refs failed on one or other of these grounds, and some were either parroting what the company had told them or were blatantly promoting it.
- it's all about what the company sells, little about the company itself other than locations. To show notability you need hard 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 claims presented as fact include: Eton Institute also has a wide range of training and development courses... offers many other combinations of languages... highly qualified and experienced instructors... worthy causes
- If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. That's particularly the case if you work for the company or are otherwise remunerated by it.
It's not the worse I've seen, and if you want to try again, I'll post the deleted text here for you to work on. incidentally, you need more wikilinks in it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC).
- you need better references. Too many are social media, pages owned by the company or its affiliates or parroting of press releases. If this company is genuinely notable, there should be better sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I tweaked the text slightly, just grammar/MoS fixes. My feeling is that the article will be deleted again in its present form. It's still mainly about what you sell. For example, the lead should summarise the article, but only says what you sell, with no indication of why your company is notable (if it is). There is no financial data, and your references are mainly just your PR releases, not independent analysis. The first ref is actually written under the company byline. You need more facts, eg financial data, and genuine third party sources as defined above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:John Jacobs Producer.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:John Jacobs Producer.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
edit
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| Welcome! It appears that you've received 7 AfD's and 0 welcomes! You deserve a Barnstar for your tenacity! MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 16:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC) |
Your help desk question
editYou have a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bumble dating app company logo.jpeg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Bumble dating app company logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
