Hello, Whytestone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type ((helpme)) on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! MikeWazowski (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sandra Navidi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whytestone. You have new messages at Ser talk:Sphilbrick's talk page.
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

 Done --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sandra Navidi 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/Sandra Navidi 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. bender235 (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whytestone. You have new messages at Bluerasberry's talk page.
Message added 00:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replied again! Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More! Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whytestone, I would normally reply at my talk page, since you left a message there (I presume you have your preferences set up to automatically watch any pages you edit). However, I have some general points to make (and links to add) that you may find helpful; so I am putting them here so that you can decide when to archive them (my talk page is set up to be archived automatically at regular intervals). My advice is intended to "get you up to speed" as a Wikipedia editor and help you better understand how Wikipedia works (not just the official policies). To a newcomer, the "anyone can edit" slogan may be a little misleading, since there a quite a few policies and guidelines. The main problem is "notability", as defined by Wikipedia policies and guideline, because it is this which mainly decides if an article belongs in Wikipedia at all and is pretty much "non-negotiable". Other things, like the Wikipedia style guide are not usually a problem, since someone else will usually correct any mistakes, especially if you are seen to be editing constructively.

Here are the requested comments on the article Sandra Navidi:

• Whether the article is deleted or not is less dependent on the actual current content than on the consensus on whether the subject fulfils Wikipedia notability guidelines. In other words, if the subject fulfils the conditions, but the article does not, then the article should be improved rather than deleted. On the other hand, improving the article certainly does not harm its chances of being retained. I would normally make some of the changes myself, but in this case I thought you might prefer to make them yourself in order to get more experience with Wikipedia.
• I would tend to remove the statement "She has a global network with access to key decision-makers."
  1. It seems typical of a marketing pitch by a person advertising their services as a lobbyist or PR agent.
  2. It is thus likely to be seen as not being neutral.
  3. Whether she has "access" (implying potential influence) is an assessment. This would probably be seen as original research. It is better to state verifiable facts, preferably citing sources where they are stated explicitly and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions; this is stated somewhere in one of the guidelines. If she used to work for Nouriel Roubini and is frequently interviewed on national television, readers can probably be relied upon to draw the conclusion that she is not a lightweight. If a source actually states that she has access, this opinion should probably be attributed, but it is still probably better to let readers draw their own conclusions.
• The list of additional courses seems excessive and a bit like a résumé. I don't think I would include a six-week language course, for instance. If they are included, the institutions should probably be linked, so that the reader is provided with an explanation. I would prefer a better source than Linkedin, since the information there has not been independently verified.
• To me, it looks as if the following statement is not well sourced and doesn't add much.
  • "She regularly attends meetings like those of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the Group of 30, the Bretton Woods Committee, the International Institute of Finance, the Institute for New Economic Thinking and meetings of single family offices with substantial assets under management."
• To me, the following statements looks like original research:
  • "She belongs to a minority of women who have succeeded in establishing themselves in international high finance. Through her media appearances she has made the complex inner workings of the financial industry accessible to a wider audience by putting it in context and connecting it with the rest of the world. . . . Navidi provides financial markets analysis that has resonated in the financial community."
• Abbreviations should be avoided if some readers are unlikely to know them. If use of the abbreviation is appropriate for some reason, the full name should be used on first occurrence and the abbreviation should be given in parentheses. Links should usually be provided on the first occurrence. This advice applies to NYU and RGE. It is sometimes better to use less links in the introduction (lede), but in this case the reader needs an explanation of the abbreviations.
• There are various reasons for linking to other articles. One reason is to explain unknown concepts to the reader - and remember that you are writing for an international audience. So, if the text stays in, I would link to "Series 7 Examination". The article on this may be (and is in this case) under a different name, which means you have a number of choices, including:
  • change your text to read " [[Series 7 Exam]]", altering the displayed text, as well as linking
  • change your text to read " [[Series 7 Exam|Series 7 Examination]]", leaving the displayed text unchanged but linking to the correct article
  • (for the advanced, preferably in addition to one of the above - as a service for readers) create a page called Series 7 Examination (e.g. by clicking on this red link and electing to create the page) and make it a Redirect by entering the following text:
    • #REDIRECT [[Series 7 Exam]] ((R from long name))
  • In this special case, though, I see that the SEC calls it the "Series 7 Examination", and I would regard this as the common encyclopedic name; so I would leave your text, just adding the square brackets and move the article (see the drop-down menu for the downward arrow at the top right of the artice page). This may be a little complicated for a newcomer, and it may involve you in a discussion about whether the move (i.e. rename) was a good idea so feel free to ask me for assistance (or I can do it for you) but, as I said, this is to help you learn some more about editing Wikipedia.
  • You probably want a link for Deloitte & Touche. There is already a redirect to the actual article name (since the name of the company changed) .
  • I presume the "Appellate Court" of Cologne is the Oberlandesgericht. You might want to provide a link: [[Oberlandesgericht|Appelate Court]]. If you were feeling really bold, you might like to create an article on the actual court. If you understand German, you could translate the article from German Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me for assistance; there are attribution issues when translating articles.

The article probably attracted the attention of new-page patrollers because it looked like a promotional article by someone with a conflict of interest. As a disinterested newbie, you will probably be "cut more slack", but special attention is given to biographies of living persons. If the article contained text copied from another Web site, it may also have attracted the attention of patrollers looking out for copyright violations, which are treated very seriously and are different from plagiarism. It is usually better to express things in one's own words. Direct quotes should normally be put in quotation marks and attribution should be provided in the text (not just in a footnote as when citing the source of information). For academic work, it is probably a good idea to get used to a very strict interpretation of quotation rules (particularly in a German context - you may have heard about various German politicians being stripped of their doctorates).

The above opinions are mine, of course, though based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and my experience of contributing here. Sorry for the wall of text, but hope it helps. --Boson (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boson, I considered your comments carefully on a point by point basis. Your detailed explanations were helpful, and spot on. There were statements in there that were not properly sourced, or did not add any substance to the subject of the article. There were also statements that were non-neutral and promotional. I removed all of them, as well as having made the other minor adjustments that you brought to my attention. I can sense a sincere willingness to help on your part and also on the part of other experienced Wikipedia editors. I believe that you and your colleagues would not have taken the time & energy to provide the comments that you did if you felt that this subject was not deserving of a Wikipedia article.

This is certainly not the same article that it was a couple weeks ago. But I feel that the downhill slope is becoming steeper. Before I made this recent batch of changes, another editor placed a vote for deletion. This individual felt that the subject "appeared sometimes on TV". In the article, I mention specifically 12 different media outlets (there are actually many more than that). Do you think it would be helpful if I would have provided individual references to any or all of those 12? Or do you think that excessive references might be frowned upon in this case. Those references would mostly point to videos at the respective media sites.

I removed the sentence that began "She regularly attends meetings like those of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank ..." because I had no sources for them. These venues typically don't publish a list of attendees, only the attending Heads of State of the participating countries. Yet it is very difficult for people to get in to them, and I think that the fact that she is invited regularly to these global policy meetings does elevate her notability.

If this article ultimately does get deleted, it will not have been for lack of effort. Thanks again for your time. Whytestone (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]