User talk:Neurotraumageek

Hello, Neurotraumageek. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mastin Kipp, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Neurotraumageek. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Mastin Kipp".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea, Thank you for your previous reviews of Draft:Mastin Kipp. I've substantially revised the draft with additional sources that provide independent profile coverage (not just interviews): New profile sources added: * The National (UAE) — "The mantra machines: the science of the self-improvement gurus" (Jonathan Gornall, Jan 2014) — Independent critical analysis using subject as case study * Mysterious Ways/Guideposts — Cover story profile (Oct/Nov 2017) * 24Life magazine — Biographical profile (2017, 2019) * Oprah Daily — Feature article by Molly Simms (April 2022) These join existing coverage in Inc., Forbes, Chicago Tribune, Metro US, and HuffPost. I believe this coverage is comparable to Marie Forleo, a contemporary in the same field (also appeared on Super Soul Sunday) whose article cites similar sources (Inc. profile, Forbes, Business Insider). Would you be willing to take another look? I'm happy to make further revisions if needed. Neurotraumageek (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Subject: Draft:Mastin Kipp — Request for Reconsideration Hello Bonadea, Thank you for reviewing Draft:Mastin Kipp. I'm writing to respectfully request reconsideration, as I believe the submission meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies when the sources are examined more closely. I understand the concern about sufficient independent coverage. After further research, I'd like to highlight sources that provide PROFILE-style coverage (journalists writing ABOUT the subject with independent analysis) rather than simple Q&A interviews: --- PROFILE/FEATURE ARTICLES (Independent coverage about the subject): 1. The National (UAE) — "The mantra machines: the science of the self-improvement gurus" Author: Jonathan Gornall | Date: January 9, 2014 This is a critical analysis piece where the journalist independently examines Kipp as a case study in the self-help industry. It covers his background, platform, and business model with editorial commentary — not a Q&A format. 2. HuffPost — "Mastin Kipp, TheDailyLove.com Founder, On How A Tweet From Kim Kardashian Changed His Life" Date: August 28, 2013 URL: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mastin-kipp-daily-love-kim-kardashian_n_3830746 Narrative profile summarizing his life story, addiction recovery, and platform growth. Written in third person about the subject. 3. Oprah Daily — "Your Brain on Trauma" Author: Molly Simms | Date: April 27, 2022 URL: https://www.oprahdaily.com/life/health/a39833240/mental-roadblocks-brain-on-trauma/ Feature article in a major Hearst publication where a journalist profiles Kipp's methodology and coaching practice. He is the central focus of the piece. 4. 24Life Magazine — "Train to Claim Your Power" Date: 2017 URL: https://www.24hourfitness.com/24life/fitness/2017/train-to-claim-your-power Narrative feature covering his philosophy, personal journey, and methodology with integrated quotes — not Q&A format. 5. 24Life Magazine — "Highly Successful People Share the Turning Points That Changed Their Life Trajectory" Date: 2019 Biographical profile section covering his career transition, addiction, and recovery. --- SUBSTANTIAL COVERAGE IN MAJOR PUBLICATIONS: 6. Inc. Magazine — "Is This the Next Tony Robbins? The Purpose-Filled Rise of Mastin Kipp" Author: Scott Mautz | Date: July 6, 2017 URL: https://www.inc.com/scott-mautz/is-this-the-next-tony-robbins-the-purpose-filled-r.html 7. Forbes — "Mastin Kipp: Control Your Career And Take Charge Of Your Life" Author: Dan Schawbel | Date: August 8, 2017 8. Chicago Tribune — "Daily Love blogger Mastin Kipp talks happiness" Date: October 14, 2014 9. Guideposts/Mysterious Ways Magazine — "Mastin Kipp on Embracing Life's Divine Storms" Author: Brett Leveridge | Date: October/November 2017 (Cover story in national magazine) 10. Metro US — "The Daily Love's Mastin Kipp explains how to avoid toxic relationships" Date: September 3, 2014 11. Well+Good — "The Daily Love's Mastin Kipp is on the move" Author: Sarika Sangwan | Date: ~2012 --- EDITORIAL LIST RECOGNITION: - SuperSoul 100 (2016) — Selected by Oprah Winfrey's editorial team alongside Tony Robbins, Deepak Chopra, Brené Brown, and Eckhart Tolle - Watkins Mind Body Spirit "100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People" (2012) --- PRECEDENT — MARIE FORLEO: I'd like to note that Marie Forleo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Forleo), a contemporary in the same field who also appeared on Super Soul Sunday, has an approved Wikipedia article. Her cited sources include: - Inc. Magazine profile (Leigh Buchanan, 2014) - Forbes case study (2012) - Business Insider coverage The sources I've provided for Mastin Kipp are comparable in depth and reliability: - Inc. Magazine profile (Scott Mautz, 2017) - Forbes coverage (Dan Schawbel, 2017) - Oprah Daily feature (Molly Simms, 2022) - The National profile/analysis (Jonathan Gornall, 2014) Both subjects have similar credentials (Super Soul Sunday appearances, SuperSoul 100 inclusion, bestselling books, online business programs). I believe consistent application of notability standards would support inclusion. --- I'm happy to revise the draft further or provide additional information. I've disclosed my connection to the subject via the {{connected contributor}} tag and have worked to ensure the article maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Thank you for your time and consideration. Neurotraumageek (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Moritoriko was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

sources are not properly independent of the subject of the article

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mastin Kipp and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Moritoriko (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Which sources do you consider not independent? The National (UAE) piece is critical analysis by Jonathan Gornall. The HuffPost piece summarizes third-party video coverage Neurotraumageek (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Mastin Kipp. You noted that "sources are not properly independent of the subject." I'd appreciate clarification so I can address this properly. I believe several sources provide independent coverage rather than subject-sourced interviews: * The National (UAE) — "The mantra machines: the science of the self-improvement gurus" (Jonathan Gornall, Jan 2014) — Critical analysis using the subject as a case study, with the journalist's independent commentary * HuffPost — Third-person narrative profile (Aug 2013) * Oprah Daily — Feature by Molly Simms with editorial framing (April 2022) * Inc. — "Is This the Next Tony Robbins?" — Profile with journalist's observations (July 2017) * Mysterious Ways — Cover story in national Guideposts publication (Oct/Nov 2017) Could you clarify which sources you consider not independent and why? I'm also trying to understand how the standard applies compared to Marie Forleo, a contemporary in the same field whose approved article cites similar source types (Inc., Forbes, Business Insider). I want to meet Wikipedia's guidelines... just need to understand what's missing. Neurotraumageek (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond and for trying to figure out what is missing. I actually am unable to read The National piece that you talked about, I tried getting it on wayback machine but it wasn't there, so I can't offer any insight on that piece. What I can say about the other pieces that I characterized as "not independent" is that in discussions on articles at WP:AFD (where we decide whether to keep, delete, or do something else to articles) sources that consist entirely or mostly of interviews of the subject without strong analysis on the part of the author are regarded as being not independent and not suitable for supporting claims of WP:Notability. So for example this Chicago Tribune article: normally this is a very reliable newspaper and a strong source but the article is entirely questions and answers with no independent commentary about those answers by the author so that is why I called it "not independent". I can't claim to have checked every single source, but I looked at a bunch of them and they were all the same feeling thus my comment I made when I denied the draft. As for Marie Forleo, a lot of her articles are also the same but I did look at her book which seems to have sold decently well and been reviewed in a number of publications so her article can be considered under WP:NAUTHOR. I did also try looking for reviews for Kipp's books but I wasn't able to find anything satisfactory. I hope that answers your questions. Moritoriko (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on Q&A vs. independent analysis. I've identified three sources that meet that standard: 1. The National (UAE) — "The mantra machines: the science of the self-improvement gurus" * Author: Jonathan Gornall * Date: January 9, 2014 * URL: Independent critical analysis of the self-improvement industry using Kipp as a case study. The author provides his own commentary — not an interview. 2. LA Confidential Magazine — "Mastin Kipp's Words of Wisdom" * Author: Lesley McKenzie * Date: 2014 * Wayback: Third-person profile piece, not Q&A format. 3. Research and Markets — "The U.S. Market for Self-improvement Products & Services, 2003-2023" * Publisher: Research and Markets (business research firm) * Date: March 3, 2020 * URL: Industry market research report that includes in-depth profiles of 60 top motivational speakers. Kipp is profiled alongside Tony Robbins, Deepak Chopra, Oprah Winfrey, and others. This is independent third-party industry analysis, not an interview. I've updated the draft to rely on these sources. Let me know if this addresses the independence concern. Neurotraumageek (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

After some finangling, I managed to read the first one and that is a bit better because there are the author's own thoughts visible which is not the case in the second one, you're right, it isn't Q&A format but notice how there are a lot of "Kipp says"/"he says" etc.? That is a decent sign that all of that information was from an interview but is written in prose instead of Q&A format. The report that the last one talks about could be good, but it is hard to judge based only on the link that says there is a report and not on the report itself. Moritoriko (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on Q&A vs. independent analysis. I've identified three sources that meet that standard:

1. The National (UAE) — "The mantra machines: the science of the self-improvement gurus"

• Author: Jonathan Gornall
• Date: January 9, 2014
• URL:

Independent analysis of the self-improvement industry using Kipp as a case study. The author provides his own commentary — not an interview.

2. LA Confidential Magazine — "Mastin Kipp's Words of Wisdom"

• Author: Lesley McKenzie
• Date: 2014
• Wayback:

Third-person profile piece, not Q&A format. The author writes narratively ("The Daily Love founder Mastin Kipp touches more than 250,000 people every day...") and packages biographical information into her own framing rather than presenting a transcribed interview.

3. Research and Markets — "The U.S. Market for Self-improvement Products & Services, 2003-2023"

• Publisher: Research and Markets (business research firm)
• Date: March 3, 2020
• URL:

Industry market research report that includes in-depth profiles of 60 top motivational speakers. Kipp is profiled alongside Tony Robbins, Brené Brown, Oprah Winfrey, and others. The full report is paid, but the press release on GlobeNewswire names Kipp as one of the 60 profiled speakers. This is independent third-party industry analysis — a research firm selected him for inclusion, not an interview.

I've updated the draft to rely on these sources. Let me know if this addresses the independence concern. Neurotraumageek (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Just knowing that he is in the report doesn't mean much for me. I went through and gave the draft a couple edit passes as well. I still personally don't think that the draft passes Notability requirements and that is based on looking for sources outside of what is in the article already but since I have edited the article now I will let someone else take a look at it and they can decide. Cheers and hope you stick around and edit some more after this. Moritoriko (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits and for passing it along. I appreciate the guidance throughout this process. Neurotraumageek (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Please allow the Articles for Creation templates, including previous declines and reviewer comments, to stay on the draft – removing them creates a little more work for the reviewers. When the draft is accepted, the reviewer script will remove all such templates. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 09:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. I'll keep the templates intact going forward. Neurotraumageek (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)