Talk:Danielle Egnew: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians 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 This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Paranormal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Multidel

The psychic section lacks a neutral tone, and the only sources provided to verify her psychic claims are her official websites. I've already tagged the entire article as being like a resume; it is little more than a vague listing of her accomplishments, with links to external sites, and the psychic section is no exception. I vote to delete the psychic section unless someone is able to verify the psychic claims with a reliable 3rd party source and makes the tone more neutral.== Deletion or major overhaul of psychic section? == The psychic section lacks a neutral tone, and the only sources provided to verify her psychic claims are her official websites. I've already tagged the entire article as being like a resume; it is little more than a vague listing of her accomplishments, with links to external sites, and the psychic section is no exception. I vote to delete the psychic section unless someone is able to verify the psychic claims with a reliable 3rd party source and makes the tone more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon1930 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmillerche (talk • contribs) [reply]

Subjective tagging in "Psychic" section removed. This wiki article is not intended to prove or disprove psychic ability but to report on the work of the individual. The tagwords "alleged" and "claims" throughout the section denote information properly. Danielle Egnew is a publicized media personality who additionally works in the paranormal and psychic field. As of September 11 2011 Google reports 22,500 media, television, blog and radio websites documenting this claim when searched using "Danielle Egnew Psychic". WHOIS reports that only four of these 22,500 websites belong to "Danielle Egnew Spiritual Advisory". Please refrain from misusing tags.

Give me a couple weeks, I'm going to tackle this page rewrite. Citations and everything.Sgerbic (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Brandon1930 pointed out before his contribution to the talk page was wiped out by Tht890, an overhaul was needed for the page. Multiple issues existed with over half the citations listed, which went to either broken links, or the page referenced did not support the content it was sourcing. The citation style was updated to meet with Wikipedia's citation format, and the unusable broken links, as well as non WP:RS sources were removed. The psychic section contained no secondary sources, and the content could not be reliably sourced per WP:RS. The article has been rewritten with to be more WP:NPOV, and cleaned up with a more encyclopedic tone. I have removed the notability guideline tag for this page, as the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO per criterion 1, as her professional work as a musician, producer, etc has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself."Nmillerche (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damn Nmillerche you beat me too it. The page looks much more like a Wikipedia page now. Sgerbic (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the section has been re-added, but this time with proper citations. I made some slight changes to the wording to state the claims in a NPOV, as well as to the order of the sections, seeing how the sources from the Psychic section appear to flow from the subject's film and radio career, vice the opposite. Also, discussing the Norma Lopez case, we need to be very careful to differentiate between speaking in the voice of the claimant, as opposed to speaking in Wikipedia's voice. I have adjusted the wording accordingly. Nmillerche (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article nominted for deletion? Cap020570 (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the discussion has been initiated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Danielle_Egnew_(2nd_nomination) concerning the subject's eligibility under notability guidelines. Nmillerche (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]