Talk:Lisa Robin Kelly

	Biography portal 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 supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

August 11 to 17, 2013

1975 or 1970?

According to IMDB, she was born on March 5, 1970, but according to filmreference.com she was born on 1975, but they don't know what exact date she was born. Which one is it.?PeteHastings (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As repeatedly discussed, IMDb is not a reliable source. Unless you have something to support the claim that filmreference.com is a reliable source, it would seem that it isn't March 5, 1970 or 1975. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB IS MOAR RLEIABLE THEN WIKIPEIDA. IF I HAD A DOLLER 4 EVRY CITATIAN NEEDED NOTE ID BE RICH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.19.33 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a dollar for every citation given in IMDb, you'd be flat broke. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues

Does TMZ really pass muster as a source for a BLP? It's pretty much a video gossip column, isn't it? And surely Twitter is not a reliable source. I reworded one of the sentences pertaining to the March 2012 event to better reflect what Kelly actually said, but I'm not sure how well I did... Richigi (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it's quoting named sources, TMZ has been acceptable — it's an established news-gathering organization (albeit of celebrity news) headed by an attorney/publisher. It's when it's quoting anonymous "sources" that it doesn't reach the concrete threshold required by an encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate and birthplace

Her local newspaper the Hartford Courant says only "March 1970" and raised in Southington, not born there. We have no citation for March 5, just March, and no citation for where she was born: Lots of people are born in one place and raised in another. Some anon IPs and others who keep adding these unverified claims need to pleas stop: This is an encyclopedia and information here has to be irrefutable and concrete. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of sites with a birthdate Month day and year http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/lisa_robin_kelly/ http://www.allstarpics.net/pic-gallery/lisa-robin-kelly-pics.htm TacfuJecan (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both look as using Wikipedia as their source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:NeilN. Appears like mirror information. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We still do not have a reliable source for a specific day. IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical information. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will the death certificate that's available be suitable to add the DOB? Though it is a primary source, I feel that it could be used to verify the exact dob to appease those who constantly seem to want to add it. Connormah (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I found a couple of NBC affiliates that mentioned her specific DOB. I added the info and sourced it. To Connormah I don't particularly see what the objection would be to a primary source for a fact like that. It's uncontroversial and doesn't inflate the subject any, as far as I can tell. However, when another US personality died, (Huell Howser, if I recall correctly,) I remember there being objections to the use of the TMZ death certificate as TMZ was not considered a reliable source by that/those editors. Seemed silly since TMZ certainly has the means to acquire a legit death certificate. Anyhow, I figured I should mention it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That NBC affiliate was citing IMDb. We need to find a reliable source. I'm going to see if there's a source that cites the death certificate, if we can't cite the certificate itself. Why we can't makes no sense to me at all — these are official documents and as trustworthy as anything someone might say in an interview. (Not to mention court testimony is given under oath, which interviews aren't. I just don't get it.). --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tenebrae the NBC affiliate does not attribute her DOB to IMDb. They attribute the number of That 70s episodes she appeared in and where she attended school to IMDb. It's a perfectly reasonable source to use in a non-BLP for an uncontroversial piece of data. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The very next sentence says they're getting their information from IMDb. They don't attribute the birthdate to anyone else. And, clearly, as we've been seeing, the birthdate hasn't appeared in any reliable source until the death certificate came along, so where else would they have even gotten it? In any case, we've got a citation that's clearly not iMDb, so in the end we've all arrived at the same place. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the death cert citation would be the most reliable - it's an official document which is as reliable as we can get IMO. Though it's based on info from an informant, often times obituaries from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc. use info from a relative or a friend for their obits. I believe we could use the death certificate for as a main cite - I believe that WP:BLPPRIMARY (if that's what was being referred to) applies more when a date is unknown or not widely known. In this case it seems that we're just trying to verify a (seemingly) widely circulated date. Connormah (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all essentially in agreement. Myself, I'd prefer to link directly to the death certificate, but if that's going to create an issue, then linking to an article that references it (and itself links to it) is the next best thing. I'm just playing it safe. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point about the news affiliate was this: Sources like that are presumed reliable, and objecting to its use because they happen to refer to IMDb for other information does not mean IMDb was the source for the DOB nor would they have to attribute the source if, for example, they have access to various public records as one might expect a news affiliate to have. Making guesses as to where the data came from is basically a form of WP:OR. That said, the death certificate is a better source and fine by me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More on birthplace

Find-a-Grave is not WP:RS for biographical information but just grave information. It's not a journalistic or academic website, and it is not known for biographical expertise or anything else except for the location of graves. Here is a list of Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussions of consensus to this effect.

Per WP:BRD, the reverted editor should have come here to discuss it.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] does this suffice? Rusted AutoParts 20:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yep — seems like a newspaper from her area. Thank you for finding. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to edit-warring editor

Since an editor prefers to ignore WP:BRD and edit-war rather than discuss, I'll break down why his version of a passage is inferior to what was here before,

HIS EDIT

Kelly died in her sleep on August 14, 2013 at the age of 43

EXTANT EDIT

Kelly died in her sleep on August 14, 2013, at age 43

His edit to the above added needless wordiness.

HIS EDIT

while at a rehabilitation facility in Altadena, California. She had voluntarily checked herself into the facility days earlier.

EXTANT EDIT

while voluntarily checked into a rehabilitation facility.

His edit uses the wordy phrase "She had voluntarily checked herself into the facility" though the same thing can be said with three words: "voluntarily checked into". Also, the cited source (Fox News) never mentions Altadena, California, so it's a dishonest cite as well. His "days earlier" is in the cited source, so that's an honest add, at least. But why would he turn that Fox News cite from a properly formatted one to a raw URL? That's utterly wrong.

HIS EDIT

On January 3, 2014, the Los Angeles County Coroner ruled her death to be the result of "multiple drug intoxication", noting that the drugs were ingested orally.

EXTANT EDIT

On January 3, 2014, the Los Angeles Dept. of Coroner concluded Kelly's death was due to "multiple drug intoxication" [followed by two cites he removed without explanation] ingested orally. [followed by a cite he removed without explanation]

"Dept. of Coroner" is the proper-noun name of the department. He repeats the word "drug" unnecessarily in the next phrase, which also uses the wordy and unnecessary "nothing that the".

HIS EDIT

the coroner ruled Kelly's death to be accidental,

EXTANT EDIT

[Fair enough; that's additional pertinent information]

HIS EDIT

they did not release specifically which drugs were the cause.

EXTANT EDIT

[We don't say what someone didn't say. We only say what they did say. OR-synthesis speculation about what they didn't say is POV]. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"days earlier" and "accidental" from edit-warring editor have been added to extant text.

A note in general: We do not delete citations without explanation, we do not add raw URLs, and we certainly do not replace full citations with raw-URL versions of same! --Tenebrae (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm not going to read all that. But I will agree to this, which is most of your wording.Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly died in her sleep on August 14, 2013 at the age of 43 while at a rehabilitation facility in Altadena, California after voluntarily checking into it days earlier.[13] On January 3, 2014, the Los Angeles Dept. of Coroner concluded Kelly's death was due to accidental[14] oral "multiple drug intoxication", but did not cite specifically which drugs were involved.[15][16]

In June 2014, Kelly's estranged husband filed a lawsuit against the rehabilitation center where she was being treated and subsequently died claiming negligence.[17]

"I'm not going to read all that"? If you can't follow simple rules of verifiability, if you're going to add editorial comment about wha somebody didn't say and if you're going to add wordier phrasing that says the same thing, that's not the way Wikipedia works. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a source stating where the rehab was located as well as a source stating that the drugs were not identified. Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]