Talk:Danielle Jonas

Redirect
To whom ever will be reviewing this page:

I am aware that "Dani Jonas" redirects to "Kevin Jonas"'s page. However, I believe from all the sources I have provided that Danielle Jonas has proven herself to be notable on her own. I would like "Dani Jonas" to no longer redirect to Kevin Jonas's page, but to this page. Please take that into consideration when reviewing this material. Thank you! Daxri 09:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Dani Jonas doesn't exist. I'll make the redirect. --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you need to. When this article was created in February, the admin who approved it redirected it already. At least I think they did. But I guess it wouldn't hurt if you wanted to check. Thanks Daxri 22:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I made the redirect and looked for others but couldn't find any. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Daxri 01:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Article comes across as a press release
An individual keeps adding a "promoting language" type banner to this article, yet refuses to start a discussion on the talk page (like I'm doing like a responsible editor) and also refuses to give specifics on what "language" is "promoting." This individual also keeps deleting that Danielle Jonas is the founder of the Jewelry company "Moments," which there are two third party sources stating that she clearly founded that company. Why does this individual delete this information??? I wish I knew! But they refuse to give specifics or answer any questions. I am leaving this here for either this individual to do the correct thing (which is engage in discussion) or for other editors to find to beware this individual who refuses to engage in correct protocol. Daxri (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting a discussion
 * Like last year    , the article once again needs a cleanup, for the same reasons: The sources are poor and notability is being ignored or de-emphasized in favor of questionable, promotional content. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the links you provided are things that were DELETED a year ago and have STAYED DELETED. Thus the issues you have with the NEW edits have nothing to do with the links you provided. You're just rehashing an issue that was dealt with and deleted a year ago. Yet again, proving my point-- you have NOT read the new edits to this article and you NOT looked at new sources cited. I can't help you if you don't know what it's the article. I can't help you if you don't state specifically what "language" is of a promoting nature and what specific sources are not reliable. I need specific from you, not links to stuff that was deleted and STAYED deleted a year ago. Daxri (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * New banner? Now the citations are an issue?? Will you ever give specifics?? Or are you gonna continue to put banners up without reading the article?? Daxri (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The citations need publication dates. Lots to clean up here! --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WOW! You found one minor issue.... totally worth a banner. "Lots to clean"... says the person who can only find one specific problem. Daxri (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we agree it's an issue. Nothing minor about it. If there's only coverage of a topic in a short period of time, then there may be NOT and POV problems as indicated by the template you removed and the topic of this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just fixed it. Added dates published and dates retrieved to all citations. Try again, buddy. But at least read the article this time if you're gonna add another banner. Daxri (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the references. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Lede
I prefer the first as a bare-bones lede emphasizing notability.
 * 1) Danielle Jonas ( Deleasa; born September 18, 1986) is an American reality television personality, best known for her relationship with musician and actor Kevin Jonas.
 * 2) Danielle Jonas ( Deleasa; born September 18, 1986) is an American reality television personality and the founder of the Jewelry company "Moments." She is best known for starring on Married to Jonas alongside her husband, musician and actor Kevin Jonas.

The second de-emphasizes her relationship with Kevin, which I hope we can agree is by far her most notable aspect. The second promotes her jewelry company, which is of questionable encyclopedic worth at all as sourced.

The article is full of such problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is NOT promoting her jewelry by simply STATING that she founded the company. YOU ARE GRASPING AT STRAWS HERE. Stating a fact is not promotion. For example: Kim Kardashian's most known for her sex tape with Ray J, but she founded the company KKW Beauty. Is stating her founding of that company promoting it? No. It's just a fact. Did I say: "Her amazing company "Moments"??? Not I did not. I simply stated she founded the company. No words of promotion. You seriously are grasping at straws here, buddy. Daxri (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand the situation. Regardless, the burden is on you to make a clear case for inclusion. The material should be removed until you do. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to explain further. If there's no further comment, I'll revert. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I ALREADY MADE A CLEAR CASE FOR INCLUSION. She is the founder of the company. It's a fact cited by 2 secondary sources as I have ALREADY STATED. Why don't you check it out for yourself. Instead asking me to do everything for you. Daxri (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources are poor and promotional. They are nothing more than publicity pieces. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yahoo News and US Magazine are not any wikipedia banned sources list. So again, that's like you opinion man. Show me a list of banned wikipedia sources that has those two sources on it, then I'll change it. Until then, find some evidence for your claims. You just WANT to find problems at this point and harass a fellow editor. I'm not interested in your petty bullshit. Don't like the fact that she founded a company? Not my problem. It's still a fact and still cited by 2 secondary sources. You can't delete facts based on how they make you feel. Daxri (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm just gonna repeat what I just said under Early life section, because I have feeling you're gonna ignore it: You can't have a consensus when there are only 2 editors who have opposing views. So until another editor or set of editors can settle this dispute, it should be left as it.Daxri (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The publisher's are not a concern, though both can tend to publish these type of publicity pieces.
 * Glad you agree we don't have consensus. Will you respect BLP and not revert again if the material were removed? --Ronz (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Why should it be deleted when you have no evidence for your claims?? Your complaint is not enough evidence for deletion. Daxri (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources are of poor quality, demonstrating little or no encyclopedic worth, certainly not enough to include the information in the lede.
 * BLP requires high-quality sources. The use of these publicity pieces creates undue weight on what is simply promotion, failing POV and NOT. Such material should be removed per BLP, and not restored without clear consensus.
 * I've requested independent review so we can move on. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Does BLP also state that New York Daily News, Yahoo News, and US Magazine are all banned sources? No, it doesn't. Again, that's your opinion. I hope the independent reviewer takes facts not opinions into account. Daxri (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...banned sources? Straw man. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's much better than either. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Early life
First, the section isn't solely about her early life.

The sources are poor.

I'd rather we didn't use the New York Daily News ref at all, as it's a poor source in general.

The section too closely mirrors the tabloid and promotional sources in emphasis on topics of questionable encyclopedic worth. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've changed to the section name to "Personal life" and trimmed back some of the tabloid-type information. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Changed the name of the Section to just "Life." The New York Daily News is NOT on the list of banned sources, so it being a "poor source in general" is like your opinion, man. Please show me a wikipedia banned sources list where the New York Daily News show up and I'll change it. Until then it's your obligation to change what you FEEL should be changed-- not barking orders at other editors to do the work for you based on your opinion. Daxri (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The name "Personal Life" is fine. I have no issue with that. Daxri (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please focus on content.
 * I said the New York Daily News is a poor source in general. If consensus against it was any stronger, I would have simply removed it. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You can't have a consensus when there are only 2 editors who have opposing views. So until another editor or set of editors can settle this dispute, it should be left as it. Daxri (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't revert my edits to the section, I don't see any major problems with the section. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Married to Jonas section
The section is a bit of a coatrack about the show. It should be rewritten completely, focusing on Danielle's relationship with the show. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * A. The banner you put up is for "Neutrality." The section is completely neutral, no promotional language, no "This show is amazing, please watch!" type of sentences. So why the neutrality banner? That's completely an erroneous banner.


 * B. Coatrack??? That's when a section is supposed to be about one thing but actually talks about another. The entire section is about the T.V. Married to Jonas which what the section is called.


 * Talking about "You need to make a clear case for her founding a company".... why don't you make a clear case for this erroneous banner?! Daxri (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The section needs a complete rewrite for the reasons I've given. You don't appear to disagree.
 * I've removed it until in the meantime. The show is given prominent mention without it. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I do disagree! Are you daft? Apparently you don't read my responses just like you don't read the actual article you're editing. You have no evidence for your claims of neutrality or coatrack. Daxri (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The "Married to Jonas" section has been rewritten to be more "Danielle centered" thus the section has been reinstated. Daxri (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attempt to address the problems. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Business ventures section
Given the poor quality of the sources, I wouldn't be against complete removal. At most a sentence about each may be due. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Modeling section
Danielle Jonas has been on the cover of Social Life Magazine in 2012 to promote her television show Married to Jonas and the cover of Fit Pregnancy Magazine in 2013 to share her pregnancy story. However she didn't model as a career until her social media began to take off and her husband's band (The Jonas Brothers) got back together in early 2019. She has done modeling for several companies via Instagram promotions on and off since 2015-- most notably for the company "Bootea." She was featured as a model and actress in the music video for the song "Sucker."

Fails V, OR, SOAP, POV rather blatantly. All it does is put together unrelated publicity and call it "modeling". --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * DaniellePhotoGrid 158316.jpg