Talk:Jessica Gavora
| 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 sourced must 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Restoring sourced material edit
The reason given for removal was "doesn't seem particular notable". [1] However, Notability applies only to whether an article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Verifiability, a less restrictive standard, applies to what goes into an article. Gavora is a writer, she did a lot of work on a NYT best-seller - it is verified by the author of the book, and by a writer in the NYT - certainly these are reliable sources. The main reason under the verifiability policy article to keep this info out would be if introduced non-neutral point of view, and I don't see how it does. I have also checked WP:INACCURATE, WP:IRI, and WP:ICW, and cannot find a reason there that even remotely applies. No claim is being made that is not supported. She is a writer, helped out on a book, and does not have a terribly long bibliography or bio here so it is not like the addition of this material lards the bio with detail.
I did this additional checking of current policy and guidelines because I realize this is a BLP, and we must be careful about content that is added or removed. I think I have met the standard of showing this is relevant, appropriate and reliably sourced, so I will add it back. KeptSouth (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jessica Gavora. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110303065219/http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm to http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715184331/http://old.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez062102.asp to http://old.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez062102.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)