Jump to content

Talk:Doreen Virtue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 15:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is inactive and no one has adopted the nomination.

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self-nominated at 22:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Doreen Virtue; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • I remember looking into whether Virtue could have an article a couple years ago -- interesting to see she does now! I'm concerned, though, about the blog source (One Grounded Angel) in a BLP. The WRSP is also a little iffy (it's CESNUR-affiliated), though my source highlighter is probably wrong to call it red -- RSN discussion is inconclusive and leans that both it and CESNUR being listed as red is wrong. The hook could use some copyediting ("born-again Christian" is better rendered that way), and the article jumps around somewhat in a difficult-to-follow way; there's a rapid leap from her being raised Christian and attending a nominally Christian university, to her many years as a New Age author, with no explanation of the series of events here. Can anything be filled in? Vaticidalprophet 10:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edwardx, just a reminder of this. I've been thinking about the article's discussion of her books too -- it's a bit sparse, even for DYK. Virtue was a big deal, and a fair amount of her work has had semi-mainstream impact (e.g. the concept of angel numbers, which have a lot of mainstream coverage these days). A QPQ is also still needed. Vaticidalprophet 18:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Could New Age and born-again Christian be linked in the hook? Edward-Woodrowtalk 22:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Whispyhistory (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwardx:'s last edit was in October, and there are still concerns listed above. Unless they come back or someone is willing to adopt this nomination, this is liable to be closed. Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Whispyhistory if they're willing to adopt this given that they regularly collaborate with Edwardx. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Narutolovehinata5:... I have nothing more to add on this one. Whispyhistory (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Since no one else has picked this up and Whispyhistory has declined to adopt the nomination, I'm closing this as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Need for better sourcing

[edit]

The article needs better sources and should probably be tagged at the top of the article with a better sourcing banner. I cannot find where to get the template for it. Can anyone help with locating and placing it? Also, while YouTube is not considered a reliable source, if the article subject is a YouTube entrepreneur, and has more than one monetized YouTube channel, how else are we to link evidence of the channel's existence if not by using the link to the channel itself? Any helpful advice would be appreciated. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: I found the BLP sourcing banner and placed it at the top of the article. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]