User talk:Marianti21

Welcome!
Hello, Marianti21, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as The Official Bright Line Eating Cookbook: Weight Loss Made Simple, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.
 * Article development
 * Standard layout
 * Lead section
 * The perfect article
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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, ask me on my talk page or you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Official Bright Line Eating Cookbook: Weight Loss Made Simple


A tag has been placed on The Official Bright Line Eating Cookbook: Weight Loss Made Simple, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This is my first article in wikipedia. I revised the tutorials and guidelines and made sure to follow the formats that other book pages had. I also added references, third person to make sure it was valid. I'm a little confused on why my article was deleted and why it says it shows advertising when I just stated facts that can be verified in the same book and citations. Can somebody Help?


 * What sources do you have that satisfies the demands of WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK? Say the best 3-5 you know of. I'm assuming we're talking about this book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk)hello Thanks for your help. I believed if the author has made the best seller lists with both her books as well as other best seller lists for other countries, Amazon, and other reviews this book was notable. Or does it have to have the mentions in this specific book? On the rules for a book being notable, the last one is that the author is historically notable. Is this the case of would the book not apply because it's lacking more external references?


 * Appearing on bestseller lists does not help in itself, but it may generate some useful coverage. Per the linked guidelines, independent WP:RS published reviews of the book would support the argument that it should have a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk) Alright. do you think my work can be returned to me so I don't loose it and can keep working on it? I would like to save it until the book gets the coverage it needs for a page and then I can attempt to publish it. Who do I have to ask? Your help was very valuable. Thanks so much for taking the time and explaining.


 * , are you willing to draftify or something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's spam and I'll not assist in its re-creation. – Athaenara  ✉  15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Btw, Marianti21, about discussing on WP talkpages. If you go here : Special:Preferences and enable a thingie called "Discussion tools", you will get a "reply" link at the end of each comment, and using that both indents correctly and signs. There's also a button (little guy with a +) for easy WP:PINGing. There may be other stuff in the preferences you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Love this feature. Thank you for sharing this with me!~ Marianti21 (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * gathering your sources should be the very first task, before you write anything. Good sources, in reliable, independent publications, that discuss the topic in depth.  In fact, when the time comes to write your article, it should summarize what the best sources say about the topic.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I am missing 1-2 independent publications for this article. I thought that because it was a book what I presented for citations was enough. It is good for citations, but now I know that for it to be considered notable it must have more independent mentions. Experienced editors have helped me so much. This has been a learning experience. I'm only worried about the other pages (that I didn't create) that were deleted. The admin tells me it has nothing to do with me, but I can't understand why a notable person's page that has a big and international trajectory and who gets a lot of coverage would not be considered appropriate for Wikipedia. I am really surprised. I practiced some of my edits on this page and honestly I think it's of great value for the encyclopedia and the community.~ Marianti21 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are still keeping that author's name secret for some reason, so I can't look up why the article was deleted. You say there is "a lot of coverage" - if you were to give a list of the very best ones (4 or 5) perhaps we could offer some opinion on whether they are likely to be acceptable.  Please be specific: we can't help based on generalizations.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no it's not a secret in any way. The author of the book is Susan Peirce Thompson. This was the name of one of the pages that I mention that I didn't create and was also deleted. I'm waiting for the reply of the admin. User:Athaenara. In her talk page I sent links to the media appearances in the past months. She is a NYT best selling author of two of her books and her program is followed internationally. She also has articles and receptions that I believe were mentioned in the article. I'm just confused on why an article like this would be deleted. Marianti21 (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. https://www.wfla.com/bloom/weight-loss-mindset-vs-dieting-rezoom-your-life/
 * 2. https://thebalancingact.com/bright-line-eating-innovative-solutions-to-weight-loss/
 * 3. https://slingshot.disney.com/?c=dgN4Mnxxj8g3hzqH345P9fR37qLwSwrrzKdkD89dB2bLhmzH
 * 4. https://thehill.com/changing-america/opinion/588022-its-time-to-call-the-american-obesity-epidemic-what-it-is-an
 * 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWLxkCMAldo
 * 6. https://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/20220105125222-experts-share-tips-for-breaking-sugar-addiction-as-many-begin-wellness-journey-in-2022-doctors-point-to-breaking-unhealthy-eating-habit/?intcid=CNM-00-10abd1h Marianti21 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * tidied the list of urls --bonadea contributions talk 09:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In the list above, 1) is unavailable to me, 2) is a marketing video and text, 3) is a broken link to what appears to be a file repository, 4) is an opinion piece written by Thompson, 5) is a YouTube video called "Fed Up: Not Another Diet. Not Another Day. 5 Day Challenge"; it is more than an hour long so nobody is going to watch it all to find out what it says about Thompson, and 6) is another broken link. Is any of these sources independent? --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know the author. We have two distinct problems here.  Firstly, the previous article about Susan Peirce Thompson was deleted because it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion".  Secondly, as  describes above, the listed sources are not reliable enough, independent enough, and in-depth enough, to show that she is notable.
 * The first problem can be addressed in a re-write by sticking to straightforward matters of fact. It will be tricky because most of the material out there is very promotional, but it can be done.  But the second problem (lack of suitable sources) looks like it will be much harder.  I just spent way too long reading through the first 150 news items returned when I searched on her name. There are lots that quote what she says, and even more which she or people from "Bright Line Eating" wrote, but that's not what we need - we need articles that are ABOUT HER.  Not what she says about losing weight etc, but actually telling us about her.  And not written by her or her staff.  If it's out there, I could not find it.
 * The book "Bright Line Eating" (ISBN 9781401952532) was apparently a New York Times bestseller, which is nice but that is not a factor for notability (see WP:NBOOK). You may be able to find a few detailed reviews of the book in good sources: that would be your best chance to support an article about the book, but not the author.  Sorry if that's not the answer you were hoping for.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the most WP:GNG helpful source I've found so far (about Susan Peirce Thompson, not any book). It actually has a paragraph about her, not just interview bits.
 * IMO, it may be possible to make an article about her that "sticks". Apparently she has a dedicated fan-base, but this may cause problems in WP-land. If such an article will end up resembling Gemma Newman or Jilly Juice I can't say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice find. Her University of Rochester staff page  says almost nothing except to confirm her position.  Even the "Research Overview" link there just redirects to a page where you sign up for her program!  Her own "About me" page  has some information but it's all self-written so we can't rely on it.  Google Scholar cannot find any entries for her, which is a bit surprising for a professor: perhaps I missed them.
 * I agree that between source above and all the times she has been cited in publications, you might barely be able to make a case for her article. But I think you should check with the previous deleting Admin first, giving the list of the sources you intend to use.  Otherwise you might end up wasting your time.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gronk Oz for taking the time. I've been doing my own search for publications and I found an article from Time magazine, Shape magazine, one in food revolution network, a research paper published by her with some other people in the journal of nutrition and weight loss, and some articles from democrat and chronicle like the one you pointed out. Some of the links that I posted before were to interviews on local and national news. Are any of this considered for notability? I also found that she is a NISOD Excellence Award winner for outstanding contributions and leadership. Can you tell me what you think ? I thank you again for your messages. Marianti21 (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I found some articles from magazines like Time, Shape, and democrat and chronicle. Are these articles acceptable for notability? The last link was to an interview in national news. She has been on the news several times. Are tv interviews sources that are acceptable? Thanks for your help. I appreciate your explanation and time. Marianti21 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In general, interviews (on TV or in print) can be used as limited sources of information, but they do not contribute to notability because they are what the subject herself has to say, not what independent sources say about her. You don't give me enough information about those other articles to allow me to evaluate them.  Time, for example, is generally a reliable source but has somebody there written an article about her?  About her company or book?  Or is it just Susan commenting on her weight-loss plan again?  I've never heard of NISOD, so I am not sure how much prestige it carries - is it the "National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development"?  If so, it is probably not significant because "At its annual conference, NISOD recognizes more than 1,000 Excellence Awards recipients"  and their web site  does not find any mention of her.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Marianti21, thank you for your efforts to find reliable sourcing. It is a little difficult to say much about the sources you suggest, however, since there's information missing. Could you present the three best sources (in terms of showing notability – see this information) with some info about what they are? The following information would be helpful: the exact title of the source, what it is, and a working URL; please double-check the URL, since two of the sources you listed above did not work. For instance, source "4" in the list above could be presented like this (this is just an example, since it's an article written by her so it doesn't count towards notability) :
 * The exact formatting or order of information doesn't matter so much, but including that info would make it much easier to comment on the sources. Sources do not have to exist online; a printed book or newspaper is also a source, but it is even more important to include info about what the source is called and where it is published, if there is no URL. --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The exact formatting or order of information doesn't matter so much, but including that info would make it much easier to comment on the sources. Sources do not have to exist online; a printed book or newspaper is also a source, but it is even more important to include info about what the source is called and where it is published, if there is no URL. --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I note that there is a related discussion (about the book Bright Line Eating) at Teahouse--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently located at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1137; see also Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1137. – Athaenara  ✉  05:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Marianti21. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. You uploaded a photo of Susan Peirce Thompson and stated that it is your own work; together with the fact that all your edits have been about Thompson and her books, it seems rather likely that you are connected to her in some way. bonadea contributions talk 10:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

bonadea Hello. Thanks for explaining what you observed and concluded. I have followed this author's work for some years and think that her contributions are very interesting and notable. I have read her books which allows me to edit on pages, including information that was not accurate in them. I read the guidelines and if I don't work for the company or publishing or are directly related to her, I'm welcome to be a contributor, of course making sure that my information is encyclopedic and not promotional in any way. I believe that my writing aligns with this. I asked for a picture for my article and asked for copyrights and the person that provided it made sure it was public. I chose the option of no copyright that I found. I'm I right or am I missing something? I'm sorry for so many questions and I really appreciate your time. Wikipedia is harder than it seems and I've been learning a lot. I want to get it right. There is never enough reading in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianti21 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Marianti21, thank you for clarifying this. Copyright is a pretty complicated thing, and the English Wikipedia servers are located in the US which is a notoriously litiginous country, so copyrights are taken very seriously. Basically, the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer unless they donate it explicitly to someone else. I'm not sure what you mean by "making sure it was public"; the copyright owner has to follow the steps outlined here in order to donate the photo to Wikipedia. When you upload an image to Commons, you specify the licence (and keep in mind that if you upload a photo there, you are explicitly allowing anybody to use that photo for any purpose, including commercial purposes). The copyright tags at Commons are explained here.  I have never uploaded an image to Commons or to Wikipedia, so if you have further questions about this, I'm not the best person to ask. Best, --bonadea contributions talk 23:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation on the steps to follow. I'll be extra careful next time to do it as you suggest. I will read thoroughly through the pages that you linked to learn about this. Thanks again for taking the time and helping me improve. ~ Marianti21 (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)