User talk:TamaraBiljman

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sendible (July 17)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
qcne (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, TamaraBiljman! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! qcne (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Sendible

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Sendible, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. qcne (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Qcne,
Thank you for reviewing my draft in a matter of seconds, Draft:Sendible, and for your candid feedback. I understand completely that the submission was declined because it reads too much like an advertisement, though that was not my intent as I tried to make it as neutral as possible, and relies too heavily on non-independent sources, which means it failed to establish notability from a neutral point of view. I also acknowledge the speedy deletion nomination under G11.
I apologize for these shortcomings. I am working under a conflict of interest, as disclosed on my user page, and I clearly still have much to learn about meeting Wikipedia's strict neutrality and sourcing standards for company articles.
I am now undertaking a fundamental rewrite of the draft, with a strong focus on eliminating all promotional language and ensuring every claim is supported by truly independent, reliable, secondary sources. I will strive to demonstrate notability solely through external, objective coverage.
If the page happens to be deleted before I can complete and resubmit my revised version, would it be possible to request that it be restored to my user space (e.g., User:TamaraBiljman/Sendible) so I can continue to work on it there? I am committed to making it encyclopedic.
Thank you again for your time and guidance. TamaraBiljman (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TamaraBiljman. I have removed the speedy deletion tag in good faith. Please very carefully read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
It is generally really difficult for people with a COI to write in a neutral way. It's one of the reasons we heavily discourage COI editing. qcne (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing it. I have also submitted an official request. I will do my best to remove anything that even remotely resembles promotional language. Thank you once again. TamaraBiljman (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the page to the best of my abilities. I paid close attention to everything that might seem promotional. It is very hard to be neutral, but I hope I have met the criteria now, but if not, I'm more than happy to continue working on it. TamaraBiljman (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some problematic words that still appear: engaging, entrepreneur, globally, insights, more than, numerous, ranked, significant, worldwide
You can also condense the draft substantially - a lot of what you've written is fine for a marketing brochure but not an encyclopaedic article. qcne (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responsiveness and advice! I'll remove those and condense it asap. TamaraBiljman (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated the words you highlighted (the only word remaining is ""worldwide" as the "area served", but that's what Wikipedia itself suggested). I have also removed all the repetition and removed an entire section on services to condense the draft. TamaraBiljman (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is much better. You can re-submit for review now. qcne (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, thank you so much for your immense patience. TamaraBiljman (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sendible (July 17)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bakhtar40 was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bakhtar40, thank you for your review. I have already went through numerous reviews and rewrites with another reviewer, removed all words that might make it sound promotional (the only word left was "worldwide" in the infobox, as that is our service area and Wikipedia itself suggested it). The other reviewer checked it numerous times to ensure the article is neutral, and that I have condensed it as much as possible, before encouraging me to resubmit it for review. The content is backed by sources like Forbes, Entrepreneur, G2, Social Media Curve, BusinessWire, PCMag, HubSpot, VentureBeat, TechRadar, TechRound, Tech.co, The Telegraph. I have use Sendible's content only in the instances of the names of our leadership (as that's where that information can be found), founding year, and similar matters.
I am keen to keep working on this article to meet your criteria, but I would kindly ask you for your guidance, as I have already met the criteria of the previous reviewer, so I'm not sure what should I edit this time around. You can see our conversation on this very talk page. TamaraBiljman (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Bakhtar40 qcne (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft still includes excessive commercial content, such as "Product and features." This contravenes Wikipedia's policy. Advertising is prohibited on Wikipedia. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. I have removed that section and replaced with Services (a section that I noticed both our competitors and other SaaS brands added to their Wikipedia pages). Please let me know if this is better now. TamaraBiljman (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was just wondering if you had a chance to review the removal of the featurrs section and inclusion of services, that now explains what the software does, instead of providing a detailed breakdown of the product? TamaraBiljman (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to re-submit for review if you think it's in a better state. qcne (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. Thank so much. I have just resubmitted it. I think it's better now, as (at least I) can't see much difference between ours and Hootsuite's or HubSpot's page. TamaraBiljman (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sendible (August 31)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gheus was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Gheus (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gheus, thank you for reviewing the article. However, I am a little bit confused by your comment as the previous reviewers didn't have anything against our references or their validity, except for the last one that simply asked to remove data linking back to the Sendible's website (even though that citation was primarily used for the names of the leadership and when the company was founded). Which I did.
Your comment states that we need multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent of the subject. And I completely agree with this, which is why the references include:
Moran, Matt (2025-05-09). "Sendible Review 2025: Features, Pricing, Pros And Cons". Social Media Curve
"Sendible Review". PCMAG
Coleman, Alison. "How Sendible's Founder Rescued His Startup From His Employers". Forbes
"Sendible, London's rival to Hootsuite, poised for global domination". The Telegraph
"Top 20 Social-Media Tools to Add to Your Arsenal in 2016". Entrepreneur
I've been writing and rewriting the same article for months now, and I keep getting encouragements from reviewers to "just correct this one thing and then it will be ok" just to get another rejection. TamaraBiljman (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can fully understand your frustration. There are several things I don't like about the way "Articles for creation" submissions are handled. One of those things is the fact that most reviewers who decide to decline a submission just select one from a standard list of decline reasons, and don't go any further. That is bound to be seen by a new editors as meaning "just correct this one thing and then it will be ok". In my experience, however, it often means something more like "I've noticed this one problem which is enough to decline the submission, and it has never occurred to me that it might be more helpful to an editor who submitted a draft to give them a more complete review than just mentioning the first problem I happen to notice".
I've thought of a few things I can say which may possibly help you, but I'm short of time now, so I may come back to it later. JBW (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @JBW for understanding my frustration and being willing to help. This is the first time I have submitted a Wikipedia entry, but I did look into a lot of other SaaS tools that have their Wikipedia page, how they structured it, what sources they listed, etc. And honestly, my wiki-amateur eyes just don't see any difference.
I truly don't understand why they get to have a page while my entry keeps getting denied over and over again. Some of them offer full breakdowns of their features and what they do, and I was told that in our case that is promotional. Others have less strong and in general less sources, but they were still deemed notable enough, while we weren't.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would be so kind to provide me with some actionable advice. TamaraBiljman (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]