User talk:Traffic888

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent edits to Multichannel[edit]

Information.svg Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. While the content of your edit may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! Greenmaven (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for message. So much wrong it's hard to know where to start. 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. Although you had a list of references, because you didn't use in-line citations, it's hard to know what claimed facts each is supposed to be supporting. In any case
  • it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
  • Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: first universal digital marketing... a mission to simplify... a leader in the global digital advertising solutions industry... inspired tools... ideal budget optimization... delivering the best results... allows for the optimal ad spend and reach—and that's just from the first paragraph. Much, much more in a similar vein
  • Other promotional practices include capitalising the group's name, as well as the (permitted) bolding at first use, having url links in the text (only in refs and external links) and a long list of related external links. You can have one link to the main official site, people who want your LinkedIn, YouTube etc can find the links there, they are not appropriate here.
  • it's all about what the company sells, little about the company itself. Where is it based?. How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors?
  • 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. I didn't check for this because the obvious spamming meant it could not be kept anyway. Note that 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.
  • 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 Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

I hope this helps Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to your message on my talk page, note that company press releases fall some way short of being independent verifiable sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)