This article was nominated for deletion on 5 September 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This section added by Me for at least a couple of times and every time after a few minutes remived by user: generalrelative . It has sources within it, there's no doubt on the fact, while that user didn't let it be here. I really don't what should I do put it here.
After Johnny Depp defamation trial against ex-wife Amber Heard which the verdict was in favor of Depp, Taylor was on of those who claimed it is a stepback for women or makes them hesitant to speak out of abuse; while critics argues it could not be a stepback, because existing false allegationstions is obvious and everyone knows that. Other experts denied her claims, as well.[1][2]
during public praising of “King Richard,” that the movie centered around the rise to success for Venus and Serena Williams with the help of their father,Taylor accused the film of sexism, it got a lot of reactions, mostly negative ones. she wrote on her Twitter: “Did they seriously make a film called ‘King Richard’ about the success of Serena and Venus Williams – but it’s about their dad, Richard,” [3][4]Freethinker6799 (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these look like reliable sources to me, and Daily Mail is depreciated (see WP:DAILYMAIL). Beyond that, Wikipedia is not a platform for cataloguing WP:SENSATIONchurnalism, particularly not on WP:BLPs, where there is a higher standard for inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok. no problem you're right. I saw the page on daily mail. also there were a larg content cited to Guardian, independent, etc. or personal blog. I removed them. thanks for letting me know. appreciate it. while I think you accept my editions that did based on your guidance. Freethinker6799 (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you're willing to engage. FYI, the Guardian and the Independent are considered reliable sources. That doesn't mean that anything they publish is necessarily WP:DUE for inclusion, but we shouldn't be cutting things simply because they're sourced to these newspapers. For more perspective on this, I'd suggest reading WP:RS. 12:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
No need. I got in agreement with you, all unreliable sources would be deleted. That way is fine by me as well as you were insistive on it too, should be fine with you either. Regards
.jpg){kind=small}
