Talk:Kelli Underwood

The writing I've edited has to be one of the most insipid entires I've ever seen for an encyclopedia. The Britannica writers would have junked this quickly if it was intended for their publications.

'Disputed Sources' related to calling GWS the Orange Team
So a YouTube video of Kelly Underwood calling GWS the orange team isn’t a good enough source, even though it presents evidence of her doing this. But a whole bunch of facts without sources or citations are seen as fine? It has gone viral everywhere. It should be allowed on the Wikipedia page. If it isn’t, when it’s 100% fact, why are all these other facts allowed without sources or citations, are these not disputed too? Seems like someone just wants to make it out like Kelly has never done anything wrong, rather than include every well known event. GwsFan2016 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has clear guidelines. Content must be sourced to reliable independent secondary sources, and must be written neutrally. What you have added has not met these criteria. If there is a reliable source that has reported this, then please identify it here, and we can have a discussion about whether something on this can be included and if so how. But please also not that wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news site and so not everything that happens can or should be included, and there are also clear guidelines about biographies of living people that must be adhered to.Melcous (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

So then why are there numerous paragraphs without sources or citations? Where is the reputable source? What you have linked also says ‘Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere’. I’ve shown the recording of her saying it. It’s a primary source. And it’s that big the club has changed their Insta bio. This is what she is now known for the most GwsFan2016 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)