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 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 Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Hi Alssa1, the text in the article was removed per the no original research policy, which clearly states: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research... To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented... The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged". Therefore, the text should be removed until reliable sources are added to the article. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit involves a number of changes not justified by the policy you're citing. Furthermore what you are trying to remove has been present since at least 2012 (in this edit) and had sources to back it up then. I don't believe it's legitimate to remove this content without first assessing the source of the claims and making the necessary citations as need be. The 'citation needed' tag exists for a reason, and we shouldn't use it as an excuse to remove content. Alssa1 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate the sources then if you have any? My edit was entirely justifiable. The onus is on you to provide sources for any information you claim to be true, if it is disputed, which is exactly what I'm doing. "It existed 9 years ago therefore it must be true" isn't a valid source, particularly because of the fact that Nuts magazine was one of the sources! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't justifiable. You are recommending a change from a long-standing edit, you have a responsibility to justify your change, and make sure that you're not deleting anything of value. It is certainly not the case that the age of a particular edit is a justification of its validity, but it it is somewhat indicative of what the 'community of editors' think on a particular subject. Alssa1 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Long-standing edit" isn't a Wikipedia policy. What "community of editors"? There's fewer than 30 followers of this page, and there are no editors actively editing this article in the past 12 months. My justification is that according to Wikipedia's policy, you should find sources or remove the information, it's that simple. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
