Rewatson23

Hello, Rewatson23. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
• instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you.Deb (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lewis & Clark Ventures

Hello Rewatson23,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Lewis & Clark Ventures for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Lewis & Clark Ventures

Hi, thanks for message. 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. 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. The crunchbase article was written by company staff and Bernstein, the others were reporting what the company told them, including quotations from the bosses. A local paper paper is hardly likely to be the best source for objectivity about a local company.
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Your text had a long promotional quotation from Hillman and chunks about the firms aims and aspirations, but too few facts. To show notability you need hard facts such as the number of employees or profits.a.html|accessdate=15 September 2015}}</ref>
• As the first message on this page said, if you have a conflict of interest of any sort when editing this article, you must declare it. That's particularly the case if you are employed by the company or otherwise receiving remuneration directly or indirectly. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your company 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.

It's not the worse I've seen. If, having considered the points above, including COI, you want to try again, I'll post the deleted text to a user subpage for you to work on, just let me know. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)