Talk:Melissa Keller

Archive of page as of 2008-10-17t20:26:59z

Tabloids as sources, lack of notability.
The Grenier sources are which is sourced to "People.com", and  which cites "People" and "Extra". These all seem like tabloids, not reliable sources. WP:BLP states "Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." -- Jeandré, 2007-07-25t12:23z


 * People Magazine isn't really a tabloid or scandal sheet. As for as entertainment news goes, it's reasonably reliable.  There is other evidence out there besides People (example, they both have each other at the top of their mySpace pages).  That the two of them are dating is "verifiable" - the standard on Wikipedia.  Chicken Wing 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
Bearing in mind WP:BLP I would be inclined to remove any "gossipy" information unless it can be backed up with multiple sources which are not themselves gossip sites. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Clean up
I just removed instances of over citing because, for one, it looked odd, and it was overkill. Citing sources is great, but there's no real reason to cite every other word. Unless there's quote or some content that is likely to be challenged, citations should go at the end of the sentence. I doubt anyone will question that she is a model or an actress, and I think the same goes for her measurements, etc. Unless there's a huge debate about it, I think placing the links in the "external links" section (which is where the majority of the info came from) is acceptable. IMDb is not an acceptable source anyway, so that citation was useless and would have (should have) been removed by anyone doing a verifiability check. Pinkadelica (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All the citations were there because of edit warring. With all the unsourced info removed the article now doesn't seem to qualify as notable enough anymore. Anyone is free to get the article back to the 2008-07-06 version, but since the IMDd sources have been questioned, the sources will need to be better. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-17t20:26z