Talk:Dixie Longate

I recently edited this article to include the following information, derived, I admit, from a known-unreliable source (The Daily Mail):

" His success has been imitated by at least one other American performer known as Aunt Barbara (Robert Suchan) who also wears drag while selling Tupperware products. "

The information was removed by Nikkimaria stating that the source was unreliable (WP:RS). As the information made no claim at all about the subject of the article, I assume the paragraph was removed under the premise that the Daily Mail, as an unreliable source, perhaps made up the story. I understand the importance of only using reliable sources to make a claim about the subject of an article, I am less certain that the reliable-sources guideline used as reasoning to remove this paragraph has any bearing here (or if the tag that got placed on this article once I added a Daily Mail citation to it resulted in a knee-jerk decision to remove it because the source was the Daily Mail, not because of how the source was being used). Is there some other policy or guideline that would support such a removal? If so, which? A loose noose (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now added the information back with a more reliable source, ABC News; wouldn't a "Better source needed" tag have been more useful than removing the information and claiming the previous source was unreliable and given that it made no claim about the article's subject? A loose noose (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No. Our BLP policy explicitly applies "whether or not that person is the subject of the article" (it even applies outside of articles entirely), and similarly the principle of verifiability is applied to the article content rather than solely the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In any case, I have removed the content as irrelevant. A loose noose (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)