Talk:Nicole Arbour/Archive 1

Relevance ?
This article is proof that people now confuse number of youtube views and clicks with relevance. There are tons of scientific topics with smaller articles than her. All hope in humanity lost? In my opinion this article should be hugely reduced or even deleted. - Guest User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.27.127 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Birthyear
There are 2 different Birthyears in the article. Once it says 1982, but twice it says 1985. What is correct? --NASCARaddicted (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just noticing the same thing. When it comes to celebrities, I'm always inclined to believe the older age whenever there's conflicting information. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Up until today, we had a cite for 1982. An editor has now supplied a cite for 1985 as well:
 * article dated June 30, 2015 says she was 30 years old, which makes her birth-year 1985.
 * personal profile says 1982.
 * Given a contradiction among cited sources that seem reasonable/reliable on their face, I have removed the year entirely per a failure of verifiability policy to confirm either one. As a reminder, WP:BLP forbids including contested biographical information that is contradicted by a presumed good source. DMacks (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I went to high school with her. She was born in 1982. Graduated same year. She's 33.(24.36.249.63 (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Insufficiently WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious to be me that she was actually born in 1982. This article from her college: Humber College:, states that she graduated college in 2003. If she were born in 1985 she would have been 18 when she graduated college, which is essentially impossible in Canada. It's clear her PR team is trying to lie about her age to make her appear younger than she is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorontoFC1992 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the relevant quote from it is "On Nov. 3 Arbour stepped back onto Humber grounds almost 11 years after graduating." So call it 10 years and change. The article is dated November 7, 2014 meaning 2003 or 2004 for when she graduated. Say we assume 2004 for when she graduated (though I personally think 2003 is more likely), then if she was born in 1985 then she was 19 when she graduated. It's possible, if Nicole entered at age 17 and took a 2 year program. (And FWIW, I have zero relationship with her). Tabercil (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And we can't use WP:SYNTH based on what we suspect is most likely/reasonable. DMacks (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to some editorial general clean-up on this article, I also took a look at the birthdate (June 26) & think it is insufficiently sourced especially because this is a WP:BLP. For WIkipedia's purposes, "Who's Dating Whom" does not constitute a reliable source, so I have removed all references to Arbour's birthdate. Shearonink (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Who was it who actually said she's the "World's Sexiest Comedian"? --  Scar  † Contributions  † 06:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably herself. Definitely not me. I don't even get why she even would be seen as attractive. She has a very average, if not unattractive face. - Guest User

it was playboys website

april 28 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike10dude (talk • contribs) 07:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015
.

82.17.18.8 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be an edit request. Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015
This is written by what appears to be a very biased source and contains many claims which remain without citation. Also, there are bizarre errors in spelling, such as "up-dated"

Almost the entire advertisement section is written like a self congratulating biography, and one without sources. An example (this doesn't have a source linked to it)

In 2005, Nike Canada brought Arbour on board to be spokesperson and part of the writing team for the RUN TO 10k event on Centre Island in Toronto. This campaign was the largest advertising and run initiative in Nike Canada's history, with over 25,000 participants in the run, and featured Arbour's one liners pitting each Toronto neighborhood against each other to find out, "Who Runs This Town?" on apparel, print, radio, and live events such as Toronto Blue Jays games. During an early season Blue Jays game against the Washington Nationals, Arbour burst onto the field and led the crowd in her version of the seventh inning stretch.

74.132.66.103 (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: The advertising section has been removed. For further reference, although your point was made clear, specify an "X to Y" format of what you wish to be changed in the article. Were you hinting at a WP:PROD? JustBerry (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Still Locked?
I came to this page and was surprised by how little information it contained. I also noticed that the word "critiques" was used instead of "critics". That's when I realized that the page is locked. I understand that it might be a bit of a war zone here if it were to be unlocked, but the capabilities of Wikipedia are diminished when barriers are put up deterring people from editing rather than enabling them to generate a fully fleshed out page.

I think unlocking this page should be seriously considered. Or at least changing "critiques" to "critics". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeirano (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only locked for either unregistered or newly/certain users. Personally, I'm able to edit the article. Edits have to be accepted due to the potential for it becoming a war zone.  Cra sh  Underride  14:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2015
On the Wikipedia page it is stated that Nicole Arbour has not replied to her abuse accusations: "However, no accusation has been confirmed, nor denied, as Arbour has not yet responded to these allegations. [9]" Nicole Arbour recently did an interview with Lauren Southern at the Libertarian Republic denying the allegations and giving a story of her own as seen here: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/why-cant-we-just-laugh-at-fat-people-anymore-without-this-happening/

Thank you for your time.

Karigan1 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * THank you - it's been added. Tabercil (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the section of this article on these allegations and Arbour's response to them, on the grounds that the sourcing was not good enough for serious negative allegations against a living person. I was reverted by User:TorontoFC1992 with the edit summary 'Clear PR team manipulation of the page. Please keep the page impartial and avoid self promotion.' I won't revert, and am happy for the page to the left as it is if others support this version, but I just want to make it clear that this wasn't 'self promotion' - I have no connection with Arbour and had never even heard of her before last week. I'm only concerned with trying to enforce Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and trying to keep poorly sourced negative content out of them. Robofish (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This section has major issues with BLP. The paragraph reads like a "my neighbor's, sister's best friend told me that....". No way it meets BLP requirements. As an IP editor I'm not getting involved here but someone really should remove the section until much better sources are found. 108.180.1.44 (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled the section about the abuse allegations altogether per WP:BLP. Tabercil (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination Shorty Awards
In all honesty and fairness, should we include a little table or information about Nicole Arbour's Shorty Awards nomination? Even though I'm reluctant to say it was for best 'Comedian' or 'YouTube Comedian' (which myself does not believe so but...), she did get nominated for something and sure enough achievements and nominations appear on other biographical articles of YouTubers and others. It's good enough she didn't get this award, but a nomination is a nomination. Adog104 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Adog104
 * Including that seems fine, mentioning it somewhere is better than a table if that's her only award/nomination. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Green check.svg Done: Added the sentence in her career w/ citation. Adog104 (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Adog104

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2015
Please delete Nicole Arbour's wiki page because we cannot continue to give her attention due to her video. You heightened her image and ego by a wiki page existing in her honor. Therefore, I wish for this page to be deleted because she will, eventually, be yesterday's news. Or material will diminish. Also, she is not a good person and is lower than underwater volcanoes. Thank you.

Flordamachine (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see . You could nominate the page for deletion per instructions at WP:AFD, but I believe that would fail. Stickee (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Flordamchine, I notice you want to nominate this page for deletion, however there there is probably little you could do because of the previous talk's about the deletion of this article which include:
 * Page deleted?
 * Which highlights why this page is likely not going to be deleted. You also have to realize that Wikipedia should have a neutral ground on biographies and not leaning to far to the left of right. To be fair, she had a very long career before her "Fat Shaming" video (however it sort of impossible to Google it because of all the publicity about her recent video(s)). Also don't feel like you're the only one who dislikes her, other editors and myself equally hate her, however we can't do much about it because like other infamous people, their Wikipedia pages aren't deleted because of their notability such as Kim Davis. Adog104 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Adog104

Can someone update this page?
I would like to see this page updated with more information on her other videos especially the one about refugees. Because 1) I can't understand what she is saying 2) She is become more famous/notorious, so therefore more information is needed about her 3) If you have pages about Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin, someone who is just an obnoxious comedian should be included, too.

I'd also like to see what VIPs have to say about her videos, not just Wiki protestors.

Thanks,

Ed S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:1D4C:84DA:FD6A:D68C (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As pretty much all her videos are controversial after Dear Fat People, I would leave out the refugees since she has other videos worse than that. At the moment, I wouldn't insert anymore content she posts unless its somehow bigger than her Dear Fat People video, because the page would start being a routine job every time she posted a video.  A dog 104  Talk to me 21:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

YouTube controversy
This section is already outdated and inaccurate. Why is this even notable enough to be listed? But if you want to include it, the video was quickly reinstated, and is not still removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.92.18.113 (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Also within the query of her youtube controversy, it should be noted there was a serious question raised as to whether she had in fact set simply set her account to private in the wake of 1000's of negative comments. In fact, turns out Youtube shut her page down "accidentally" (not purposeful censoring as she claimed). She had however, disabled all the comments section on her YouTube page, explaining "It's not because I'm scared of what you guys say, It's because I don't give a fuck." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8003:dc03:166:ed77:dcb0:af42 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could she be considered a victim? Has she denied anything?--150.216.254.207 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Nicole Arbour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nicolearbour.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nicolearbour.com/go-team/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016
I think that comedian should be changed to self-proclaimed comedian. She does not have a job as a comedian currently, and is not really funny.

Brysonshier (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. She did very much worked as a comedian in the past - for instance, see this video which I think was shot at the Winnepeg Comedy Festival. Tabercil (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

She is not currently a comedian, and is considered a meta-comedian. Unlock this page so it can reflect that. Who put you in charge? Error2233 (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources describe her as a comedian, the encyclopedia has to reflect that.LM2000 (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources havent described her a comedian in years. According to canadian hate speech laws what she does is not comedy. Open the page. We are not vandals, if anything you are arbitrarily denying access to a public page.. You are the vandal. Error2233 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ‘Dear Fat People’ Comedian Nicole Arbour: ‘I’m Not Apologizing for This Video’ is the first link I found when I typed "Nicole Arbour comedian" into Google. It's from September 2015. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected request

 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Cannolis (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2016
I am Nicole Arbour's publicist and would like the alleged Domestic Abuse paragraph REMOVED ASAP - none of this has been proven in a court of law and is FALSE information from an ex partner.

The information is harmful to my client.

Thank you.

2605:E000:99DD:1900:E04A:E359:6F09:A72F (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikipedia is not censored either.  Adog 104  Talk to me 19:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Justification for lede
According the the lede this person is an "actress, choreographer, comedian, dancer, musician, singer and writer".

I'm wondering if there is any actual evidence that Nicole Arbour is or has been all of these things at a professional level? It's implicit in the sentence that she is more than an amateur, and I'm not aware of her being published in any meaningful sense, nor can I find any evidence that she has done any choreography at the professional level? Frankly the majority of sources that state she's these things are likely using Wikipedia as their source. 124.149.139.138 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've removed some of it. It does seem that she was hired at one point to do choreography, but she was fired after the video came out.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 22:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not a link to her youtube homepage?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE7faqz-mqjbUa4UaMZGAvw I could not find the link in the artice. Andries (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018
Domestic abuse allegations subsections has almost certainly been glossed over:
 * Language of the article implies that Santoro i.e. the victim, leaked the video in an unethical manner.
 * "Arbour denied the allegations in a YouTube video", pretty much glosses over the the content of the video and completely ignores contextual facts such as Arbour calling the victim a 'little' bitch on social media. Analogous to me calling the author of this page 'a little bitch' and that being translated into 'disagrees with content of the page'... i.e. massive manipulation of context.

Also requires the ability to edit for new controversies e.g. Childish Gambino - "This is America" parody. Ta16969 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent Changes to the Page Seems Biased
Some of the new information on the page seems pretty biased. Under the domestic abuse controversy, there has been an addition that the victim of the alleged abuse, Matthew Santoro, has publically admitted to having mental health issues? This seems like an attempt to discredit Santoro in an attempt to bolster her public image. In addition to this, the claim that she has 700,000,000 views is only supported by her twitter page as a source. According to Social Blade, she only has 35,0000,000 on youtube, the rest seems to come from Facebook, which is a flawed source. Facebook videos count views if someone happens to scroll by the video as opposed to watching the entire thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BismillahFigaro (talk • contribs) 08:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

This is America
Arbour has recently been in the news for a controversy around Childish Gambino's single; 'This is America' by attempting to create a version herself. This did not go down well and was covered by many news outlets, probably worth adding here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisamericaa (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

what type of comedy does she do?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.98.235 (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. 'Self-proclaimed' seems more accurate as her paid nightclub appearances seem to be based on her youtube-personality rather than hired-as-a-comedian. Evidence of recent comedy shows seem to be non existent?Thisisamericaa (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Things that need to be established ASAP.
Here are a few things to discuss and establish here that are needed:


 * Should her recent controversy or any information that ties in with it (including appearing on The View and Rob Dyke's interview with multiple YouTubers and Hosts about Nicole Arbour)?
 * Is there any way to verify her age and birth date?
 * Is there any way to deal with deletion of information that is verified by a source but not wanted by a user(s) (AKA people who dislike/hate her)?
 * Is there any information available about her Personal Life/Career that isn't controversial and that can explain her life before YouTube (AKA Playboy or other careers)?

Any other concerns please add here. Thank You! Adog104 (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Adog104
 * Mentioning that she appeared on The View is okay, stuff from Rob Dyke interviews is not okay if that's the only source.
 * From the above "Birthyear" section, it seems best to leave that out for now.
 * For inappropriate deletion, we could just do the standard, revert, ask them to stop, and if it's bad enough a sysop will block them. But that shouldn't be a problem anymore, since the noise about her video is dying down.
 * There might be some decent info in these:   Rainbow unicorn (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you RainbowUnicorn for addressing these issues. (15:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC))
 * Also adding on to this about her birth-year, if we were going to post her birth year it would have to be June 26, 1982 because in the first article @Rainbow Unicorn gave posts that she was 25 years old by December 2007 and in the second she was about 29 years old by April 2012 which supports her being 33 instead of 30. And those articles were posted before her controversy by a long time so there would be few mistakes checking. Adog104 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Adog104


 * In regards to her age, this article from August 2004 indicates that she was 21 at the time, meaning that she would be 35, about to turn 36. (I'm NOT allowed to edit her page, just thought i'd add this here: https://web.archive.org/web/20040828103354/http://www.nicolearbour.com:80/testimonials.htmThisisamericaa (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Abuse Allegations
Do any of you think this article, or Matthew Santoro's for that matter, should make any mention of her relationship with him, and Rob Dyke's testimony that she mentally abused him? Here's a source from DramaAlert.

--24.79.103.70 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To put in the simplest ways, no. From my opinion, out of respect, neither article should contain each others personality in the others article. With the YouTube video as a source, it could be totally fine by videos as a reference; however with WP:YOUTUBE, the video may be disregarded because to simply put it, its speculative and maybe unreliable for say which could make it a speculative story. Meanwhile someone may come along and have a better argument, which may allow the appropriate information being put into the article, but for now I would leave it out.  A dog 104  Talk to me 04:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Weasel Words
The end of this section ends in "Santoro has since removed this video, and in 2018 publicly claimed he suffers from mental health issues.[41]"

The "in 2018 ... mental health issues" part looks a lot like weasel words to me. It is not appropriate to connect these two facts. If Matthew Santoro had retracted the claims and blamed them on his mental health, then it would be relevant. However, this does not appear to be the case. Correlating the allegations with Santoro's mental health is not relevant to the fact that he alleges Arbour assaulted him.

It appears to be weasel words to undermine his credibility. There's no good reason to have included such a statement.

--89.133.139.132 (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Raphael K.

Birthday
According to her Instagram, today is her 40th birthday. Not sure what the criteria is in terms of wikipedia using the subject's own social media to validate biographical information such as birthdate though. I don't see any reason why she would lie about that, and she did address the fact her age online has differentiated between sources over the years. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Use of self published source for political views
@DMacks Thank you for finding a secondary source relating to that claim. Isn't using self published sources for contentious political views (rather than relying on secondary sources) in BLPs potentially quite problematic, since that could allow people to pick whichever statements they wished to portray the subject however they wanted? There could also be issues with satire, sarcasm, statements which people don't really mean etc. which means self published sources should only be used for uncontentious claims, and for anything contentious secondary sources should be used. That approach seems the most in keeping with the spirit of WP:BLP and WP:SPS to me. Tristario (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Book
Didn't she write a book? She mentioned it in her Glenn Beck interview 70.26.26.188 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If you find reliable sources that cover it you can add that to the article yourself, or leave those sources here Tristario (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Middle Name
Shoudn't her middle name be included? 70.26.26.75 (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Page deleted?
Is it possible to delete this page all together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.184.181 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not. At this point Arbour would be considered news-worthy or encyclopedic by the editorial community but one could always start the Article for Deletion process for the article.  (FYI - a form of this article has been in Wikipedia since 2006.) Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Besides, why should this article be deleted? You ask once she's clearly notable. Seems like a waste of a question if you ask me. lol  Cra sh  Underride  19:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree, this page should be deleted all together. This is not a notable celebrity. Her biggest success thus far seems to be a video that garnered a lot of hate commentary geared at her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8003:dc03:166:ed77:dcb0:af42 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree. Let the page stay. Here's why. Wikipedia is stuffed full of entries for non-notable persons. Does it matter? No, in my opinion, it does not. The worst examples of vandalism on Wikipedia are when unctuous and supercilious administrators take it upon themselves to delete a page on the grounds of lack of notability. Typically, such administrators are history buffs, living in the past, who have no time for the present. But there are many others who would like to see pages deleted that offend them. I say, a plague on all your houses. Only in the rarest of cases should a page be deleted on the grounds of lack of notability. This would usually be when the page is a prank page, or has been created by the subject or by a person who is intimately or closely linked to the subject.101.163.79.76 (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely disagree with everything you just said, especially that admins are "living in the past" and "have no time for the present". Any page that doesn't meet notability guidelines should be deleted. In this case, though, Arbour seems to meet them. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

While I would love to see this go, she at this point clearly satisfies the GNG and this would survive any attempt at deletion so all the spurious side arguments are pointless. Ridernyc (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Everyone you don't like should be deleted? Give me a break 70.26.26.75 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)