User talk:SHurowtiz

Welcome!

Hello, SHurowtiz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Cornfeld - reply to message on my talk page

I should first say that, though it is not made as clear as it might be to new users, Wikipedia is not a place like LinkedIn or Facebook for people to write about themselves. That is strongly discouraged, for reasons explained at WP:Autobiography and WP:Conflict of interest. Guidelines on how to handle COI are at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

What has happened here is not the accident you suppose. What I see in the history is a brief article about you which remained fairly stable from 2006 until the beginning of December 2013. During December an SPA user (single-purpose account, i.e. not editing on any other subject), user MRB2-NYC (talk), and several IP addresses, also SPAs, began expanding the article considerably, to over double its previous size, and making it look increasingly like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article, with promotional words like "nationally recognized... a track record of expertise... successfully... "

Wikipedia articles are not "owned" by anyone: not their first authors, and least of all their subjects (though see WP:Biographies of living persons/Help for advice for anyone who has problems with an article about them). As part of the normal maintenance of the encyclopedia, additions are monitored by other users, and one of those decided to nominate this article at WP:Articles for deletion. Articles nominated like that are added to a daily list, anyone interested may comment, and after a week an uninvolved administrator decides what to do. The relevant discussion is at WP:Articles for deletion/Leslie Cornfeld. Participation was not high - there were 62 other deletion debates started on that day, and doing the research to comment is one of the more tedious tasks for the volunteers who keep the site going - but the outcome was clear.

As the administrator who closed the discussion, I am not prepared simply to reverse my decision. The place to appeal is WP:Deletion review, and I will be happy to help you apply there if you wish; but I think you will have a better prospect if there is an improved draft to show.

I have therefore restored the article into the "Draft namespace" at Draft:Leslie Cornfeld, and reverted it to the version at 9 January 2013, the last before the December 2013 expansion began. You will see from the COI guideline that you should not edit it directly, but may make suggestions of the article talk page for uninvolved users to consider. Please point out there any actual inaccuracies, and make suggestions for points that should be added. Lists of things that you have written are not so useful as things that have been written about you: Wikipedia's inclusion test, WP:Notability, looks for evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see also WP:Notability (summary).

Tomorrow I will post a message on the WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to ask for more eyes on the draft and for people to come and help update it. I think that is the best way to make something likely to pass WP:Deletion review.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]