344:
time to find enough information on many sources I found. I tried to read the guidelines first and make many researches before posting the article. I'm writing the article as a user without promotional purposes, but only to contribute helpful information on topics that don't exist yet. But if there is any content in the article that might seem like advertising, we can just make some changes to improve the article. --
388:
article, which is why some sources might seem too small and unreliable, because they're just some sites that I found when I was looking for the information. I personally just wanted to try to create a good Wiki article and I don't understand why my work can't be appreciated or accepted by the Wiki community. --
387:
I don't understand what disclosure I have to make. I am writing the article as a user who uses the tellows platform and app on daily basis and I just thought an article about it could be relevant for a lot of people. So in this case, I believe that I'm not involved in COI nor I was paid to create the
309:
and also as this is very probably SEO undeclared paid creation. Creator made just 10 edits before creating this perfectly syntaxed article in one sitting, no sandbox and without using wizard! Highly impressive skills from an editor with that few edits. What is even more impressive is the 10 previous
343:
page before, I've been using wiki for a while but just recently made an account. I'm just generally interested in telemarketing and phone frauds topics so that's why I ran into those old articles where I made some changes. I did not exactly make the article "in one sitting" because I spent lots of
526:
As I said when I declined the speedy I don't believe that the language is overpromotional and a G11 candidate has to be "exclusively promotional". It seems to have been created by an experienced black hat editor that has avoided overly promotional language. A deletion discussion will enable us to
548:- The article has notable and significant sources. I've erased some sources that are too unreliable such as blogs, press releases, or untrustworthy sites and added more reliable sources such as BBC spain, Bild, Genbeta. The sources are now trusted websites which meet the criteria of
365:
I understand that you wish to write the article so that it doesn't seem promotional and to contribute helpful information but if you have you been asked to create the article by anyone else you must make this disclosure.
205:
451:
Okay now I understand why you were very suspicious of me and the article. I was not aware of that issue. But is there any way to keep this tellows article by improving it somehow? --
158:
416:
No. The only connection I have to tellows is that I'm a telows user who has been using their web and app for a long time. But that wouldn't be a direct connection I suppose. --
262:
282:
402:
So you do not work for
Tellows or any affiliated or connected company and have no connection whatsoever with Tellows and noone has asked you to create this article?
310:
edits were from the very start perfectly done and they were even kind enough to do some clean up of maintenance templates that had been hanging around for 8 years!
199:
90:
105:
556:
some sources are mainly product reviews which are allowed, as the reviews are objective with comparison of the product/application with other brands. --
584:
437:
the same tellows corporate blog that you used as a source to several connected pages. But coincidences do happen. Thanks for clearing that up.
165:
588:
85:
78:
17:
240:. Too promotional to be an encyclopedic entry. Trivial mention at BBC, everything else is unreliable or self published. fails
99:
95:
487:. Either identify them here in a comment or add them to the article and comment here that more sources have been added.
57:
634:
40:
220:
131:
126:
187:
580:
561:
456:
421:
393:
349:
135:
527:
nominate as a g4 if recreated whereas a g11 deleted article can be recreated at any time with the same content. --
118:
249:
53:
576:
557:
452:
417:
389:
360:
345:
237:
181:
630:
36:
549:
484:
306:
532:
492:
442:
407:
371:
324:
290:
270:
177:
213:
617:
565:
553:
536:
517:
496:
460:
446:
425:
411:
397:
375:
353:
328:
294:
274:
254:
122:
60:
614:
513:
244:
227:
435:
74:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
629:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
480:
114:
66:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
603:
505:
431:
241:
607:
528:
488:
438:
403:
382:
367:
320:
286:
266:
430:
Nope not at all but what is curious is that just before your account was created another
611:
509:
193:
152:
338:
319:
but have yet to reply on whether they had a previous account or not.
313:. They deftly avoided explicitly saying if they had a COI or not
625:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
610:
that an AfD result will provide a stronger precedent. --
314:
311:
148:
144:
140:
212:
305:
as per the nom, the sources are way too weak to pass
479:The only way is to find sources that show it meets
226:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
637:). No further edits should be made to this page.
552:. As mentioned in the product review section in
281:Note: This discussion has been included in the
261:Note: This discussion has been included in the
263:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
283:list of Germany-related deletion discussions
106:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
508:. Tagging as such in case an admin agrees.
280:
260:
434:user account was created and spam linked
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
91:Introduction to deletion process
618:16:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
61:01:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
1:
566:09:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
537:17:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
518:16:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
497:11:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
461:11:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
447:11:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
426:10:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
412:10:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
398:09:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
376:15:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
354:08:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
329:16:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
295:16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
275:16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
255:16:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
81:(AfD)? Read these primers!
654:
627:Please do not modify it.
606:'d this, but agree with
504:- seems to be a case of
32:Please do not modify it.
337:As I mentioned in your
589:few or no other edits
79:Articles for deletion
591:outside this topic.
592:
297:
277:
96:Guide to deletion
86:How to contribute
645:
602:. I would have
577:JamesBaldwinWiki
574:
558:JamesBaldwinWiki
453:JamesBaldwinWiki
418:JamesBaldwinWiki
390:JamesBaldwinWiki
386:
364:
361:JamesBaldwinWiki
346:JamesBaldwinWiki
231:
230:
216:
168:
156:
138:
76:
34:
653:
652:
648:
647:
646:
644:
643:
642:
641:
635:deletion review
380:
358:
173:
164:
129:
113:
110:
73:
70:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
651:
649:
640:
639:
621:
620:
608:Dom from Paris
596:
595:
594:
593:
569:
568:
542:
541:
540:
539:
529:Dom from Paris
521:
520:
489:Dom from Paris
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
439:Dom from Paris
404:Dom from Paris
368:Dom from Paris
332:
331:
321:Dom from Paris
299:
298:
287:Dom from Paris
278:
267:Dom from Paris
234:
233:
170:
109:
108:
103:
93:
88:
71:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
650:
638:
636:
632:
628:
623:
622:
619:
616:
613:
609:
605:
601:
598:
597:
590:
586:
582:
578:
573:
572:
571:
570:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
544:
543:
538:
534:
530:
525:
524:
523:
522:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:Speedy delete
500:
499:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
462:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
384:
379:
378:
377:
373:
369:
362:
357:
356:
355:
351:
347:
342:
341:
336:
335:
334:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
317:
312:
308:
304:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
259:
258:
257:
256:
253:
252:
248:
247:
243:
239:
229:
225:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
179:
176:
175:Find sources:
171:
167:
163:
160:
154:
150:
146:
142:
137:
133:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
111:
107:
104:
101:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
83:
82:
80:
75:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
626:
624:
599:
545:
501:
483:and notably
339:
315:
302:
250:
245:
238:WP:CORPDEPTH
235:
223:
217:
209:
202:
196:
190:
184:
174:
161:
72:
49:
47:
31:
28:
587:) has made
550:WP:ORGDEPTH
485:WP:ORGDEPTH
307:WP:ORGDEPTH
200:free images
383:Domdeparis
631:talk page
554:WP:ORGIND
236:Fails on
37:talk page
633:or in a
612:RoySmith
585:contribs
510:Kirbanzo
159:View log
100:glossary
39:or in a
481:WP:NORG
206:WP refs
194:scholar
132:protect
127:history
115:Tellows
77:New to
67:Tellows
615:(talk)
604:WP:G11
600:Delete
506:WP:G11
432:WP:SPA
303:Delete
242:WP:GNG
178:Google
136:delete
58:(talk)
50:delete
246:Hitro
221:JSTOR
182:books
166:Stats
153:views
145:watch
141:links
16:<
581:talk
562:talk
546:Keep
533:talk
514:talk
493:talk
457:talk
443:talk
422:talk
408:talk
394:talk
372:talk
350:talk
340:talk
325:talk
316:here
291:talk
271:talk
251:talk
214:FENS
188:news
149:logs
123:talk
119:edit
228:TWL
157:– (
54:PMC
52:. ♠
583:•
575:—
564:)
535:)
516:)
495:)
459:)
445:)
424:)
410:)
396:)
374:)
366:--
352:)
327:)
293:)
285:.
273:)
265:.
208:)
151:|
147:|
143:|
139:|
134:|
130:|
125:|
121:|
56:♠
579:(
560:(
531:(
512:(
491:(
455:(
441:(
420:(
406:(
392:(
385::
381:@
370:(
363::
359:@
348:(
323:(
289:(
269:(
232:)
224:·
218:·
210:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
185:·
180:(
172:(
169:)
162:·
155:)
117:(
102:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.