Open main menu

User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 11

A kitten for you!

Thanks! I figured out how to fix up my Userboxes in a separate page from yours :)

Madradish (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

Thanks for introducing yourself in the elevator at Wikipedia's Meetup today; it made us feel very welcome. Your blue suit also looked super snazzy and helped brighten up the meeting (if that is even possible, as it was amazing). :-) DrX 23:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It was great to meet you today! I look forward to seeing you on wiki and in person at meetups in the future. -Thomas Craven (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo

FYI -- did I get the names spelled right? Good meeting you in person. Liked your presentation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

 
Wikipedians presented ideas to improve the encyclopedia as well as make it more accessible to users at the February 2013 meetup in New York City. Panelists (l to r): John Randall, Program Manager, Telecommunications Equality Project @ The Roosevelt Institute; Molly de Blanc, OpenCourseWare Department Liaison, MIT; Lane Rasberry, Wikipedian in Residence, Consumer Reports; Wesley Chen, Program Associate, Open ITP
I fixed one of the names here and on Commons, and linked to the named organizations. Thanks for taking and uploading the pic, and it was nice to meet you also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Choosing Wisely, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Northamerica1000(talk) 13:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your work on the Choosing Wisely article, which was recently published in Wikipedia's main namespace after you created and worked on it at Articles for creation. Thanks for improving the encyclopedia's coverage of U.S. education campaigns. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Consumer Reports reviews Proactiv

I thought it was an interesting quirk that your client's product Consumer Reports had some negative things to say about my client's product, Proactiv. As a result, my draft of the article I shared on Talk has some organically created links for your client. Not intentional or anything - it just so happened - and it made me think of you. :-D CorporateM (Talk) 20:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Consumer Reports reviews a lot of mass-marketed daily use consumer products so I am not surprised that they covered this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven (special Birthday recap)

 
A celebratory cupcake from the Teahouse Birthday Badge

It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.

Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.

1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:

Metric Control group Teahouse group Contrast
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit) 5.02 weeks 8.57 weeks 1.7x retention
Average number of articles edited 58.7 articles 116.9 edits 2.0x articles edited
Average talk page edits 36.5 edits 85.6 edits 2.4x talk page edits
Average article space edits 129.6 edits 360.4 edits 2.8x article edits
Average total edits (all namespaces) 182.1 edits 532.4 edits 2.9x total edits

Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper

Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.

Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)

-- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here

Help with new article

Hi Bluerasberry, I hope you don't mind me reaching out to you here: as you're listed in the WikiProject Cooperation participants, I was wondering if you'd be able to help me by reviewing a new article I've written on behalf of a software company, Guide? I've left a request over at Paid Editor Help but things are pretty quiet there with only Silverseren replying to requests, so it would be great to get your help. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC) P.S. Your hamster is really cute!

Yes, my hamsters are all awesome. I reviewed the article as you requested and posted my review on that article's talk page. Thanks for writing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks! Appreciate your review of the article very much. As I stick to the "bright line" proposed by Jimbo Wales, I actually prefer not to make any edits in article space, even moving over a new draft. So, if I'm not able to find someone to move it, would it be ok for me to ask you? Thanks again. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
You may ask, and I would have done this, but you did not ask. Ask if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Seattle Wikipedians announcement

Can you help me put up one of those Seattle area geographic announcements for Wikipedia:Seattle Wikipedians on Tuesday? I'm not sure what the process is or where you go to request one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

GLAM newsletter

As you're a WiR at Consumer Reports, perhaps you could provide an update at the GLAM newsletter outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/February 2013/Contents/USA report. You're welcome to edit it yourself.Smallman12q (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Thank you. -— Isarra 01:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

GLAM Metrics at GLAM Boot Camp talk page

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Boot Camp.
Message added 19:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 
Hello, Bluerasberry. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Boot Camp.
Message added Smallman12q (talk). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Boot Camp.
Message added Smallman12q (talk). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

GLAM Toolset

You may be interested inCommons:Commons:GLAMToolset project.Smallman12q (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Forward to Libraries

Checking in to see if you want to discuss more about the Forward to Libraries initiative. I'd be interested to hear your ideas. I'd like to find out more about the technical specs of the project to, as it relates to the different types of ILS software. There's not too much of this nature on the homepage for the project. Richardjames444

I am about to email you about this. I am more interested in this from a community engagement angle than an information science angle, but both parts are necessary, and perhaps we should talk by phone or Skype. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Choosing Wisely

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Bluerasberry! I have noticed you around, and I think you would be an excellent candidate for adminship. Would you be interested in running? Frankly, I was surprised to learn that you've never tried an RfA before. Let me know if you're interested. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I know you also from your participation in dispute resolution talks. I am not interested in making a request for adminship at this time. Thanks for asking me. We really need more administrators and it is good that you are asking people to consider the process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for letting me know. If you change your mind at any point, just ask and I'll write you up a nomination statement. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 05:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Differential

I have moved the differential to the page on headache rather than the one on migraine as I think it fits better there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I see it at Headache#Diagnosis_approach. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

clearing the air!

I didn't write anything! Somebody is using my name or something, I read Wikipedia just about every day, and I enjoy it. But, I don't feel I have the education or knowledge to be writing or changing contents. I just wanted to clear the air. Thank you for a wonderful web site. Please let me know if somebody is indeed using my name to list things. No, much I can do, but I will be watchful. Again thank you for your time and work on you web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleam2005 (talkcontribs) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... I do not know who you are or how you came to find me. It seems that you registered this account and then contacted me as your first user action. If you ever decide to learn more about Wikipedia, let me know and I can assist you. Thanks! Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal views on deletion

You suggested that I come to your talk page to hear your personal views over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum_Foundation. I'm not here to harass you, so I hope you don't take it personally. As you know, policies on Wikipedia are supposed to be based upon some measure of commonsense agreement. In other words, we try to have reasons for why things are done the way they are. If the reasons don't make sense, hopefully someone tries to change it. I'll admit I'm genuinely curious as to your philosophy on deletion.

Glancing back into your history, I noticed you voted keep for a set of unreferenced high-schools (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soddy_Daisy_High_School) citing Wikipedia:Notability_(high_schools). I'd just like to point out that this is an essay, and has not been promoted to a guideline. On the other hand, WP:ACADEMIC does basically exempt academics from secondary sources, and it is a guideline. The essay itself notes that "this is not a loophole in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards". Now, I don't really care about keeping all high-schools. The fact that these are generally kept is more a reflection of the attitude of Wikipedia (or a reflection of Wikipedia's cultural bias and youthful demographics) when it comes to keeping articles. As I said before, I find it highly incongruous that a podunk high-school with a couple hundred kids is inherently notable while the 6th-largest foundation is not.

Incidentally, since we're both active in Wikipedia's healthcare side, particularly in U.S. policy, we'll probably run into each other every once in a while. And I've been a member of Consumers Union for a while, and I'm glad they're extending to Wikipedia.

I'll let you talk. Again, I'm not meaning to harass, and you're not obligated to respond. II | (t - c) 04:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you are harassing - thanks for visiting. If you want to talk by phone or Skype I am available in that way also.
In the case of any school I think that no one doubts that the school exists; the question is just whether a given school is notable.
My question about that Foundation is whether it exists, or rather, did USD 10 billion really go into a fund in 2007 which was to promote a lot of high-profile translation efforts and public education projects, and particularly those projects which are international in scope connecting countries with less development to countries with more. In some news releases, the news was that this money would soon go.
This money is in the UAE and Dubai, which is a place known for having at least okay international press relations, and I would say good international press relations. If this money was actually transferred and if it went to charitable causes then I know that it is in the culture there to promote these things in media. It only seems right that they would, because then other people could be joining projects, also contributing resources, and otherwise participating.
I suspect that this money never went to the fund. This might have something to do with the economic crash of 2008, which hit the UAE especially hard. See this article. US stock prices started to decline only a few months after the 10 billion was announced, and I can imagine that perhaps good stewardship of this money would have been to put it somewhere safe rather than donate it to charity where it would be projected to be hurt almost instantly by inflation.
Even the sources mostly talk about the future of the money. How many years should pass before this foundation does at least one major project? The projects identified seem only to be minor funding to minor academics, and then also reported in self-published press releases. A lot of my thoughts are original research, so I did not bring it up on that board. Thoughts?
I have seen you on US health care reform articles. If you have ideas about what CU should be doing on Wikipedia then I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that also. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The sources we have now do mention involvement in other areas in addition to academic scholarships, such as participating in flood relief and books for children. I agree that there's reasons to be suspicious of these foreign institutions, as they could just be there for publicity, and certainly the oversight on foreign trusts is not identical to domestic oversight. I actually have been editing trust law a fair amount lately (as well as a long time ago), and the Islamic trust waqf was originally permitted only for charity, altho I don't know a lot about it. Future journalistic research may provide more insight into whether the promise was genuine, but as of now the sources seem adequate. Given the profile of the announcement (World Economic Forum) and the profile of the benefactor, I have no doubt it exists; also, there have been some larger projects e.g. the Arab Knowledge Report and the conference. In addition, if the concern is that it is not living up to the promise, a higher-profile increases the chance that it does so. Until a few years ago, the #2 foundation on List_of_wealthiest_foundations was basically a tax sham by the founder of IKEA (Stichting_INGKA_Foundation). After The Economist published an investigation, it changed its practices to start giving, and is now one of the major supporters of UNICEF. Prior to The Economist's investigation it had attracted probably little to zero attention from the press.
In terms of investment, foundations are not required to invest in cash or spend all their money immediately. Most large ones spend only their investment earnings, and have diversified holdings.
As far as health care, I think we really need to focus on improving the articles we have. I notice you've been working on a huge spending article but if you're going to have a spending subarticle I would prefer that it be more concise - yours seems to be drifting into duplication of the general article. Also, an article about spending in the US needs to discuss the mechanics such as UCR (usual, customary and reasonable) and Resource-based relative value scale. I was on the board of a relatively small ($100m or so in payouts) health payer up until recently and have a bit of experience with those things. II | (t - c) 23:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The sources are the reason I vote for deletion. Overall, the organization is not doing the reporting I would expect of a much smaller organization (like an update of its website), so that makes me suspect it. Beyond that, its activities are either self-published and not WP:RS or they are terribly common and would not constitute notability for other organizations. I do agree with you that the announcement was high-profile and well-covered, but that single 2007 announcement is the only source which I would call solid. For the smallest organization, I would expect more to meet WP:GNG. For this one, I certainly do.
I have no personal opinion on what this organization does with its money. I have actually edited and created a lot of articles on organizations, such as when I see one mentioned in news or research. On my user page in the section "Pages I created" I have a subsection called "Non-profit organizations", and I feel like I have a low bar for accepting organizations. This Foundation is not meeting my bar. The Economist is a powerhouse and I really appreciate the way the magazine has reinvented itself with the advent of Internet - I also read about the IKEA foundation but I pass no judgment on the way it is managed.
About the health care article I have been making - I just went live with it as Health care spending in the United States. I added no content to it; it is a fork of Health care in the United States. I do not immediately know how this article should be organized nor do I know how the original health care article should be organized, but I plan to begin taking them on. I am sorting some reports which use various sorting systems for talking about health care reform, and I am not yet sure what I am going to do, but I think it will all start with organizing the existing content as you suggested. Come to one of the health care pages if you want to discuss that with me. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Rozz Williams albums

I've expanded Every King a Bastard Son a little; it's now more than a useless substub, in any case. Finding coverage of the album is difficult, as it was released over 20 years ago. It's very much pre-Internet, but I've added what I can. I've no doubt that goth culture/rock music/alternative music magazines will have covered it at the time, but it's not something I can access at this time. In any case (and yes, I know, notability is not inherited...) it's the debut album by a highly notable artist, released by a notable record label. It's perhaps worth reconsidering? J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping? Not sure if you saw this message. J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I changed my vote. Thanks for developing the article and for asking me twice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the second look! J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Template for U.S. Public Laws

Learn about the template here: {{USPL/doc}}.—GoldRingChip 15:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked a bit more. It seems that every use of this template from before the 103rd Congress is broken. See List of United States federal legislation, 1901–2001. The law I added was the last on the list for this congress, and the uses of this template for subsequent congresses work. Do you see the same thing? I think that something changed on the site targeted by the link, because you can see it is redirecting to a page talking about congresses 104 and later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not exactly broken. Rather, the GPO doesn't have public laws available for congresses before the 104th. I just now edited the template to reflect that distinction.—GoldRingChip 15:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. That is how it appeared to me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Unorthodox post

Dear Blue Raspberry

Many thanks for posting a link to the law-suit story relating to the AfD of the ICD article. I helped me understand a few things!

SkaraB 16:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Cholesterol

Wondering if you could also add the international units... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I just added them to the high cholesterol article and posted on the talkpage explaining what I did. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I replied. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index.
Message added by Theopolisme at 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sandra Navidi page

Hi Bluerasberry, I created this page last year on Sandra Navidi as part of a school research project in which students were asked to create a Wikipedia page on an individual who is active in the financial industry both in America and in Europe. The article had recently been flagged as "Dead End" and also as an orphan. Yesterday some external links were added. Today it is being considered for deletion because "The links are casual mentions of this person, and not content focused on this person". I removed those external links and replaced them with relevent links that do focus on this person specifically. Please advise if this is sufficient grounds to have it reinstated. If so, can the "Dead End" classification be removed? And in addition to that, Sandra is mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Warriors. I configured a link from this article back to the Sandra Navidi article. Please advise if this qualifies to have the orphan designation removed. Thank you, Whytestone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whytestone (talkcontribs) 15:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it qualifies to have the orphan tag removed if even a single article links to it. The article is not deleted right now; it is only a nomination and the community will collectively decide if it meets guidelines. Probably the most relevant guidelines are at Wikipedia:Notability (people). The primary reason why I supported the deletion was because the content pulled from the links did not meet the criteria for notability as described in the link I just gave. The biggest problem is that there is a rule that no one can WP:INHERIT notability, and right now this article says nothing about what this person has done but only suggests that she is important because of her relationships with notable entities. If you can add cited content from articles about this person which describes what she has done then I think that this article would pass the deletion review. It is my opinion that if the article stays as it is, then it may be deleted. If you need help I can help. The orphan designation is not the biggest problem here if the article gets deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Please note the 3 "External links" at the bottom of the page. I think they satisfy your request to see "articles about this person which describes what she has done" in order to "pass the deletion review". You stated "it qualifies to have the orphan tag removed if even a single article links to it". This article is linking to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-tv#Economy. In addition, the article now has 5 links to other Wikipedia articles. Do these three changes qualify to have the three warnings removed from the top of the Wikipedia page? Whytestone (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Again yes, you or anyone can remove the orphan tag, and also, anyone can remove the other tag about not linking to other Wikipedia articles. However, I still think that this entire article will be deleted if it is not developed further so the tags after that point will not matter anyway. The three external links are to commercial sites which do not meet WP:Reliable source criteria because the cannot objectively review this person. All three of those sites have a commercial interest in portraying her positively. Here is the shortest explanation of what the article needs to have with regard to sourcing - Wikipedia:Notability (summary). Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
In order to satisfy the "Reliable source" and "Notability" criteria, I provided external links to Independent third-party sources that are well known and reliable. Does this quailfy for removal of the deletion designation? Whytestone (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The NYT source, for example, is about a fitness center, and the AOL source, as another example, is about the business model in Cyprus. These two are not about the subject of this Wikipedia article. Can you show a source which is about the subject of the article written by someone who does not have a commercial interest in the subject of the article?
The deletion tag is only removed after a community process. Multiple people will discuss this article then decide whether it will be deleted. Administrators close discussion after enough people comment, usually within two weeks. Neither of us can remove the deletion tag. The deletion process is described at WP:AFD. It is my opinion that the community will decide to delete this article due to the nonexistence of sources meeting Wikipedia:Notability (summary). Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Creation of this article was my assignment as a college project, which required that the subject be a notable figure. Sandra Navidi is a public figure in the global economic and financial communities. I had noticed her first on Wall Street Warriors and researched her further. Wall Street Warriors was a TV documentary that profiled her professional and personal life as a woman on Wall Street. It was broadcast in over 25 countries and ranked # 1 most downloaded documentary on iTunes for two consecutive months and thereafter maintained top rated for several more months. Since then she's been scrutinized by various international media outlets and from different angles over several years. The biographical and factual statements have been corroborated by multiple reliable sources that are not paid for by or affiliated with the subject. This Wikipedia article has accumulated over 6700 views in the last 90 days, which seems to be indicative of significant public interest. She is googled so much that when you enter just the letters sandra n in the search box, her name is the top hit. She has achieved significant accomplishments in her own right, and through her contributions has influenced the work of people like Nouriel Roubini, (who stands among the world's best known & most respected economists) and business leader legends like George Soros. The profiles in the article’s external links were all independently researched and written by the respective journalists. Ms Navidi has been retained by many reputable companies and universities for public speaking engagements all over the world. Since 2009 she has given over 400 interviews as a financial expert on international media outlets; for example Bertelsmann, Springer, Burda, n-tv, RTL, CNBC, CCTV, Phoenix TV, Huffington Post, AOL, France 24 and over 200 business websites. I made recent changes to the article to provide the information that you & your editorial team felt was necessary, and removed information that you felt did not belong. I provided multiple sources that comply with your earlier request. It is my belief that this individual meets all of the notability requirements for a Wikipedia article and that a remaining room for subjective discretion doesn’t negate that. Whytestone (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the information you are giving me, but let me clarify that I do not have an editorial team and that I am just a Wikipedian like you, and that I am no gatekeeper in this matter. This article could remain as a valid Wikipedia article if it contained just a single sentence with a single good reference to put it in compliance with Wikipedia:Notability (people). It is not clear to me that it does, and as someone else commented on the deletion page, "it would be easier to check notability if all the minor references and peacockery were removed". I encourage you to read Wikipedia's definition of notability and do your best to make this article comply with that definition. You are giving me a lot of information here, and I am not sure how to respond except to say that I appreciate your intent, and I want to clarify on these points:
  1. The decision about the article will be made by anyone who cares to give an opinion at the deletion page, and not here by me.
  2. The decision about the article will only be made based on opinions which reference the criteria in the notability policy, and the arguments you make above mostly disregard that policy.
If there is something you do not understand then perhaps we could have a chat. I am available during EST office hours by Skype or phone if you would like to voice talk, or otherwise I could continue with you here, but the best advice I have is to remove unreliable sources (meaning self-published or non-independent sources), sources which do not feature this person as the subject, and read the notability policy and make sure you are meeting that.
Bad sources - person's own LinkedIn profile, person's own company, passing mention in book acknowledgements, advertisement selling person's services, interviews in which the subject of the article is not the focus of the interview Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I would be open for a chat next week, but in the meantime I want to say that I find your comments positive and constructive. I have taken further actions as a result of your suggestions, as I can see that you have invested valuable time in your review. I removed the Reference pointing to Ms. Navidi's LinkedIn profile. I also removed the link at businessinsider.com that pulled info from her LinkedIn profile. I removed the link in the References section pointing to her website. I also removed the External Link for the "Profile at company Web site" (which incidentally was added by a different Wikipedian). The acknowledgement given to Ms. Navidi in Dr. Roubini's book may seem trivial, but I felt strongly (my own opinion) that it added to her notability because of Roubini's position as one of the world's most respected economists (http://www.economonitor.com/nouriel). But nevertheless I removed it, as there seems to be consensus among other editors that it doesn't belong. I removed the advertisement link that appeared to be selling her services. From the "External links Section", I removed the interview in which the subject of the article is not the focus of the interview. In addition to removal of unreliable sources and minor references, I also removed peacock terms. I welcome your input on any other elements that you feel are not worded properly, and would be happy to make additional adjustments. Thanks to your suggestions, I believe this article is aligning itself more tightly with Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. Whytestone (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps at this point you could seek another opinion, for example at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Besides that, go to my userpage here then go to the left side of the screen and "email this user". By email I will give you my phone and Skype and then perhaps we can look at the article for 10 minutes together by voice chat. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Bluerasberry/Archive 11".