Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tellows

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tellows

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails on WP:CORPDEPTH. Too promotional to be an encyclopedic entry. Trivial mention at BBC, everything else is unreliable or self published. fails WP:GNG Hitro talk 16:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nom, the sources are way too weak to pass WP:ORGDEPTH 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 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! [1]. They deftly avoided explicitly saying if they had a COI or not here but have yet to reply on whether they had a previous account or not. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in your talk 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 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. --JamesBaldwinWiki (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBaldwinWiki: 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. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: 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 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. --JamesBaldwinWiki (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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? Dom from Paris (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. --JamesBaldwinWiki (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope not at all but what is curious is that just before your account was created another WP:SPA user account was created and spam linked [2] the same tellows corporate blog that you used as a source to several connected pages. But coincidences do happen. Thanks for clearing that up. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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? --JamesBaldwinWiki (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only way is to find sources that show it meets WP:NORG and notably WP:ORGDEPTH. Either identify them here in a comment or add them to the article and comment here that more sources have been added. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - seems to be a case of WP:G11. Tagging as such in case an admin agrees. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 nominate as a g4 if recreated whereas a g11 deleted article can be recreated at any time with the same content. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 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 WP:ORGDEPTH. As mentioned in the product review section in WP:ORGIND some sources are mainly product reviews which are allowed, as the reviews are objective with comparison of the product/application with other brands. --JamesBaldwinWiki (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— JamesBaldwinWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. I would have WP:G11'd this, but agree with Dom from Paris that an AfD result will provide a stronger precedent. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.