User talk:Carpb202

Reply
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. You gave some references, but they were all to the company itself and VEP, except one to a company written press releases, not independent third-party sources. Only the heading seem to be sourced (and headings shouldn't have refs anyway, it's the text you need to verify)
 * You are so busy telling us what the company sells that you don't give hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits needed to show notability
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. that's particularly the case when it's link to your own site. You can have one link to the company under External links
 * Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: Their mission is to help clients achieve the highest quality practice and accreditation standards... rounding out Relias' offered solutions... skilled nursing... offerings... superior online education and training... customizable and easily accessible... full range of tracking and reporting features... &mdash; and so on, just spam. I note also that everything is "offered", as if you're a charity rather than a commercial provider
 * You have an "Acclaims" section, sourced to the company of course, but have found no room for any limitations or criticisms of the company


 * The 7kb article was created in a single edit, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. 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.
 * Your edits indicate that you have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. 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 Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.
 * Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization, directly or indirectly, to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. If you work for, or on behalf of, the company, you are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the company you are writing about, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:    . Please provide the required disclosure. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.
 * Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

May 2018
Hello, I'm Joel.Miles925. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Data lake have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)