User talk:TheBodyExpert

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lisa Pellegrene (March 23)

{{subst:Afc decline|full=Draft:Lisa Pellegrene|cv=no|reason=bio|details=|comment=Currently questionable for [[WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE, add any further available amount of in-depth third-party news sources overall (see WP:Referencing for beginners). Press releases and trivial passing mentions are not acceptable for notability.|sig=yes}}

== Multiple issues with Emily Trosclair ==SD

Hi, there are multiple issues with your article for Emily Trosclair, I placed tags for most of them to help you see the issues. Without some serious work, it's likely an editor will place it on a deletion list. Please take a look at the tags I placed, and feel free to visit my Talk page if you have questions. You can also get some good advice at the Teahouse. JamesG5 (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In reviewing Ms. Trosclair's webpage I noted her publicist is named Lisa Pellegrene, which is another page you're working on. This makes it look as if you're either one of these 2 ladies, or closely connected. Please take a look at WP:Autobiography, WP:COI, and WP:NOTPROMO for some issues with creating pages you're closely linked to. JamesG5 (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Autobiographies & Wikipedia

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Lisa J Pellegrene. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. JamesG5 (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lisa J Pellegrene

The article Lisa J Pellegrene has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BIO without reliable third party sources. AFC submission of Draft:Lisa Pellegrene was declined on 23 March 2016 by SwisterTwister. No improvements after that.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vipinhari || talk 07:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple issues with Lisa J Pellegrene

Hi Lisa. I see from things you said in the Lisa J Pellegrene article you created that I was correct in my previous supposition that you're Emily's publicist, and this article has a number of the same flaws as the one you created for her (see tags on page). I note that you had a draft version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lisa_Pellegrene that was rejected, and you chose to post a page rather than working with it. You'll see in my notes above that WP:Autobio and WP:COI are both major issues in your articles. There's also a major lack of understanding of reliable sources (WP:RS), the IMDB isn't acceptable and simply having a photo at Getty doesn't establish WP:Notability. You've also filled the articles with inappropriate links (like the babynames one) and non-encyclopedic information. Both your page and the one you created for Emily will need complete reworkings, if they survive admin review, but because of the COI issues it would be best if you stepped away. If it's felt you both meet the Notability guidelines, other editors will take over. I hope this helps. JamesG5 (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Emily Trosclair

The article Emily Trosclair has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

None of this better satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER, listed works at say it all thus not yet notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JamesG5 (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Lisa, please note I did not list your article for possible deletion, an admin did. I'm just posting the notice to make sure you're aware of it. Word from the admin is that this is to give you a chance to fix the issues with both articles (if you need help you can ask at the WP:Teahouse) over the next week so you can get them up to standards. Please note tho that it'd still be best to step away at that point, and you'll need to read over WP:COI and declare your conflicts per the policy. Hope this helps. JamesG5 (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisa J Pellegrene for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa J Pellegrene is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa J Pellegrene until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NottNott talk|contrib 10:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Lisa J Pellegrene

Hi, I'm JamesG5. TheBodyExpert, thanks for creating Lisa J Pellegrene!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Major issues throughout with NPOV material, entire "Early Life" section is problematic.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. JamesG5 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Natural Exercise

The article Natural Exercise has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article created to promote a book. There are no inline citations to support the claims made. Notability of the subject matter has not been established.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WWGB (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Forced Exercise

The article Forced Exercise has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article created to promote a book. There are no inline citations to support the claims made. Notability of the subject matter has not been established.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WWGB (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Natural vs. forced exercise

The article Natural vs. forced exercise has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article created to promote a book. There are no inline citations to support the claims made. Notability of the subject matter has not been established.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WWGB (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Natural vs. forced exercise

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Natural vs. forced exercise. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Forced Exercise. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Forced Exercise – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Promotion and conflict of interest

Wikpedia's WP:COI policies have previously been mentioned. In addition to you being the publicist for Emily Trosclair, you're also listed as the publicist for Melissa Preston, whose book you've now posted an article promoting. This is contrary to Wikipedia's aims. Please stop. JamesG5 (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Noting for reference http://www.pr.com/press-release/662810 JamesG5 (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not Lesa Pellegrene.

Then aside from all the comments that point in such a direction you're clearly closely linked to her simply on the basis of the fact that all of your page creations here at Wikipedia are tied directly to her clients and projects. JamesG5 (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please define "closely linked"? Maybe this is where I am getting confused. I am acquainted with her, I asked for some resources also. I have never meet her, and I would not call us friends. Given that I am in Washington and she is in California, that is pretty much a give in. I did, of course, do my research, and linked everything pack to public pages. I am quite sure you do not want people writing about things or people they have never researched. I am not the only one who tried either, I seen where someone else had tried.

Also, how do I move the page back to the works space area? I got a little writing happy and need to back up and slow down.

I took off the links to the book,I think that was you also. That leaves me without an inline citation. I am not sure what to do with any of this yet. I want to back up, and just start with Lisa. The terms natural and forced exercise are becoming more mainstream, but they can wait until I get the hang of at least one. Lisa looks like it is going to be the hardest, so I will start there.

The book bits are pending removal because they're straight promotion, I didn't do that, someone else did, but I saw the discussion and a major part of the issue is that you created 3 separate articles for one topic, all based on that book, for something that should be included in the main Exercise article. You're also still doing citations incorrectly throughout your articles, with direct hyperlinks instead of references. At the top of this page someone mentioned Referencing for beginners which is a good place to start with multiple issues, and then WP:FOOTNOTES and WP:CITE (specifically WP:CITEFOOT) for more. If you look at other articles, cites are little numbers like this that go to a References section at the end of an article (see example below), not a hyperlink to a word in the article.

I will assume good faith here, and take your claim that you are not Ms. Pelegrene at face value, but I hope you can understand that when you join Wikipedia and immediately make a page for a person who advertises herself as a PR specialist whose primary focus is creating a web presence for people, and then start creating articles and topics entirely based around her clients and their projects, and you include a number of first-person statements in the article you post about her that it creates a serious appearance of WP:COI, especially when none of the subjects seem to meet WP:Notability and the sources you're providing don't meet WP:RS. Researching a subject is a must, but personal contact with them and using information from those contacts runs in to No original research.

I agree that slowing down, going back to Drafts, and working the process correctly would be a good move. The page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lisa_Pellegrene still exists, when it was declined that didn't remove it, it just made it available for editing. I see that Emily Trosclair has been deleted, my advice to you would be to blank Lisa J Pellegrene, Natural Exercise, Forced Exercise, and Natural vs. forced exercise and place a WP:G7 tag ("author requests deletion") at the top of each page. That will get all of them cleaned up, then you can re-do Lisa's page in draft space until it meets standards. Once that's done you can use the draft space to work on other articles until you get the hang of things.

As a side note, from looking over Ms. Trosclair & Ms. Pelegrene's info the one thing they share that looks like it might be notable & that likely has reliable sources is their pit bull rescue charity, you might want to consider that for an article. I hope this helps, I have not been trying to beat you up and would love to see you submitting properly sourced articles. Thanks! JamesG5 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you verrrry much

Speedy deletion nomination of Pittie's Angels

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Pittie's Angels requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. --Non-Dropframe _talk 03:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I saw this pop up in the new pages feed. Please remember some of the advice we've been giving you with the previous issues you've had. Rather than creating your articles in the main space, why not use the Articles for Creation process, or the Draft space, so you can have the articles reviewed & get feedback on changes that are needed before posting the article? Also, it looks like the reason this got flagged is [{WP:NOTABILITY]], and from a quick look that's because you're not citing reliable sources. I mentioned before that the IMDB isn't considered a valid source, and neither is an organization's own website. You'll need to gather mentions from newspaper articles, TV interviews, or other third party sources to show that this is a group that's gained notice. Good luck! JamesG5 (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)