Talk:Rebecca Jane Brown

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... ( clicked publish too early, the full article will be fleshed out and fully sourced) --Sam Dufus (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, still a stub for now, but looking okay. probably shoulda drafted it first, still got more to add. Thanks though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Dufus (talk • contribs) 23:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright so it has a week per WP:BLPPROD Ok, I hope to lay out at least 1000 words by then if I can find the sourcing. Even though I think she still passes for notability with being one of if not the most public persons with trichotillomania & having a quarter of a million subscribers in total. I understand if the sourcing is lacking it should go. And PamD mentioned she should be described as British not English? Is there a specific Wiki style guide for that?Sam Dufus (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeated inclusion of forum page about Beckie

There seems to be no encyclopedic reason to include a link to a discussion forum, any reason for it to stay? SPACKlick (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It is an external link on Rebecca Jane Brown. Is there a rule to state what links can and cannot be posted on wiki pages? AnonymousUsernamexoxo (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2016

Several. The most pertinent of which in this case would be Reliable Sourcing. This is a link to a discussion forum about Rebecca. It's not created by her, or curated, it's just public access. It's not an encyclopedic link. There's also the section of our policy on Biographies of living persons which says "External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs". It needs to be removed. SPACKlick (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Per the guideline on what should not be an external link (example 11), I removed it. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of examples of Brown's vlogs

I included the a paragraph of examples of her vlogs, which I thought would be a good thing to include to expand on her biography. Everything was fully cited. The examples I chose are some of her most viewed vlogs. I see no reason why they shouldn't be included. Mangetoutmangetout (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Hi, I felt that the vlogs you chose were negative in nature such as how she was rejected by Disney, how she doesn't want children, how she doesn't like a popular book . Also,not wanting children was an opinion in one vlog which she may well change in future or now and it's also too personal for an encyclopedia entry. I get the impression you are trying to portray her as controversial in a negative way, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I chose the videos as they were some of her most viewed on her channel. I had no intention of showing her negatively: I don't see what's negative about not wanting to have children or disliking a book. I am happy to remove the one about Disney, but feel that the others are not negative and will shed no negative light on her since she herself posted these things so she doesn't view them as negative. Her most viewed videos are 'photo every day' photos so I didn't include those as they had already been mentioned in the article. I feel a paragraph discussing the topics of her videos is legitimate and I will happily remove the part about disneyland but think the other examples should be included. Would you be happy for me to include them?.@Atlantic306: Mangetoutmangetout (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• • If you remove the one about having children as well as the Disney one or replace them with other non- controversial examples then I would agree as not having children is too personal and a view that may well change or become embarrassing to her if she changes her view in future, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Those vlogs are primary sources. This discussion shows that choosing which ones to highlight is always highly subjective; Wikipedia content should instead summarize what secondary sources have reported about Brown. I have removed the entire paragraph based only on primary sources. I have also removed another paragraph which was based on a YouTube video (not a reliable source) and two sources that didn't mention Brown at all to allege a controversy and to criticize her stance. That's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Repeated inclusion of unsourced material

Some users keep adding material that reflects their interpretation of Brown's vlogs, with their only reference being the vlog itself. These are not proper sources and this isn't proper encyclopedic material. Remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and be especially careful on a biography of a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtijn (talk • contribs) 21:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Link to gossip forum

A link to a gossip forum does not belong in an encyclopedia. Mtijn (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)