Jump to content

Talk:Elaine King

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surname

[edit]

Per WP:SURNAME, once we've established that we're talking about Elaine King, we don't keep using her first name. Given that there is no other King in the article to disambiguate her from, simply "King" is what the guidelines call for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand--Ane wiki (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question.Theroadislong (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong, but the article is new, ¿how I should have proceed in this case? I´m just following the procedure established in the Terms of use of Wikipedia. My work was neutral and in good faith. The subject of the article meets the requirements and I have provided enough secondary sources to show it. Theroadislong tell me if the text does not meet Wikipedia requirements. Thanks.--Ane wiki (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits most certainly, were not neutral, I have removed a lot of promotional puffery. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand your edits and I agree. Thank you.--Ane wiki (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving article back

[edit]

The article has been recently moved to add an (unsourced) last name. However, even if that is her current legal name, we don't go by legal names, but by common names (see WP:COMMONNAME). Given that this is the Elaine King name that she appears to use professionally, the name all the sources use, and even the name given on what we list as her "official" website, the article should be moved back. Any objections? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the media section

[edit]

I think the "In the media" should be deleted... "She participated on interviews" "has been quoted" "writes for" "was interviewed by" it's all just promotional puffery and telling us nothing. Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If the material is significantly talking about her, then it can be used as a source for other statements... but if it's just her talking about her topic, then there's not much of import there. (We might be able to save the "she writes regularly for" information for inclusion in her credits, but even then it would be better if we had some outside source saying that she wrote regularly for those outlets, as that would show that the information had some import. This section is much of what helps this article look more like a resume than an article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I do not understand. In WP: NRV says: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." and "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The "In the media" section does not help to meet that criteria? It is not about promotion. Also, I do not understand why the article needs a source saying "she writes regularly for" if we can show direct evidence of this to demonstrate notability.--Ane wiki (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An interview with someone does not inherently show coverage or recognition of that person. Interviewing a financial expert about their life would be coverage of that person, but interviewing them about financial matters is just coverage of finance. Showing that she has written for a website merely shows that she has written for a website, not that doing so is important or significant; other people writing about the fact that she writes for a website shows that it's a matter that others are covering, and should influence whether we cover it as well. Also, the article does not have to prove the notability (if the main goal of Wikipedia articles was to show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia, it would be a sad resource.) There may be sources that are useful in deletion discussions that actually aren't that useful in the article itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but if she is called by major media to talk about finances a lot of times, means she is someone remarkable, right? is this not important for the article? Also, if someone writes regularly for a leading Peruvian newspaper, it's not that important in itself? or is it more important another media saying that she writes there?--Ane wiki (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About TUMI Award citation

[edit]

Theroadislong marks citation Nº 6 as "failed verification". The website that was used for the citation is the official website of the Tumi Award, and contains Tumi Award winners 1995 - 2013 You have to look in the year 2011 and Elaine King appears on list.--Ane wiki (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted the info about Family and Money Matters Institute?

[edit]

Theroadislong, all the information about Family and Money Matters Institute is in the Institute´s page, that is also the Elaine King´s official webpage: http://www.elainekingfp.com/en/. Also, here is a note in spanish in a prestigious peruvian newspaper, where it is clear that Elaine King is the director of the Institute: http://www.larepublica.pe/20-08-2013/promueven-la-educacion-financiera-en-los-jovenes. ¿Why you delete the info that you think needs a citation?--Ane wiki (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced material can be deleted. You can replace the material if there is a reliable third party reference. Kings own website is not a suitable source.Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but http://www.larepublica.pe/20-08-2013/promueven-la-educacion-financiera-en-los-jovenes is a suitable source. Can you replace the info? I understand that as a paid editor I can´t do any edition, only suggestions.--Ane wiki (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't mention Miami or the date 2011 though and is the Family and Money Matters Institute really notable enough to mention at all? Theroadislong (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least it could be mentioned in "Community" (like before) that she is president of this institution; it is mentioned in that article.--Ane wiki (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Education" section needs citation?

[edit]

Because I see many other pages where this section is included, but without citations. Do I need to include an alumni list to check it, or is enough with a mention in another source? What if that information is not online?--Ane wiki (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need reliable third party sources for every claim you make about her, the sources don't have to be on line but they do need to have been published. Theroadislong (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not everything needs to be third party; we generally accept first-party sources on non-controversial, non-boastful claims. The name of the high school she attended? That can probably be first-party. That she has a doctorate in ceramic astrophysics from the University of Awesome? That would need to be sourced at least to the University, if not to a third party source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, thanks.--Ane wiki (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theroadislong, here are the references for this section:
For the rest of the items, the diplomas are not useful, right?--Ane wiki (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's great feel free to add back the education with the references above. Theroadislong (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Is there any chance of de-orphan the article? I tried but I couldn´t.--Ane wiki (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Bowen Center for the Study of the Family reference, I will get the diploma in PDF.--Ane wiki (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About "Community" section deletion

[edit]

Theroadislong why have you deleted that section directly? So far it had not been discussed... These are the current occupations of the subject of the article. You have deleted all job descriptions because they were considered "promotional", at least you should have left the list ...--Ane wiki (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of these posts been reported in reliable secondary sources? It's not a CV it's an encyclopedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why you say that it seems more like a CV entry .. is just a list of the Elaine King´s current jobs, it's part of her life. Why do you think is wrong? Furthermore, each of the four jobs listed has its citation - only need to modify the CFP board citation because the page no longer exists -. It is assumed that the function of the citation is to confirm a statement, right? If I say that she is a member of the board of the Estate Planning Council of Miami, what source can be better than the Estate Planning Council of Miami itself? Nat Gertler said that not everything needs to be third party.--Ane wiki (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If these are her "jobs" why were they in a section called "Community"? Wikipedia reports on what the reliable sources say about the subject. The article reads more like a CV to me. Feel free to request other opinions at the Teahouse. I'm clearly not giving you the answers you want. Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are in a section called "Community" because they are institutions, no business, but they could be in "Career" section.--Ane wiki (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please Theroadislong tell me if I can upload the deleted section "Community" under "Career" section.--Ane wiki (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listing her every minor role would look more like a CV than a Wikipedia article. You need to find coverage of Elaine King in reliable third party sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To retrieve a deleted sentence

[edit]

One of the phrases that were deleted for being considered unsourced, was: "King also advises on retirement planning, saving for educational needs, estate planning, family meetings and financial competency programs focused on children and women." This source could be useful?: http://www.plannersearch.org/PS/Pages/Planner-Search-Results.aspx?from=advanced&name=king. It is the official website of FPA, where Elaine King competencies are listed.--Ane wiki (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It just sounds totally promotional to me and the source is a primary source.
I understand what is a primary source and a secondary source, but if I try to prove which is the work of Elaine King, is not better to have the official page? I need a third party to certify it? Beyond that, I saw other pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariela_Dabbah, which were written in the same style, and I did not see anyone questioning, then I thought it was valid.--Ane wiki (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the media

[edit]

This reads like name-dropping/resume like and is pretty excessive.--WondoMathias (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elaine_King&oldid=1196643549"