This article was nominated for deletion on 29 July 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.
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 United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
I removed those particular claims because something like that cannot be sourced to a tabloid (which the NY Post is). The second source (Daily Mail) simply parroted what the NY Post published. §FreeRangeFrogcroak02:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Two papers printed what Nicolino said on the LA Shrinks TV show about her own past (ab)use of prescription medication. She said it, about herself, broadcast on t-e-l-e-v-i-s-i-o-n. Your removing information looks like you're giving in to a spurious legal threat, when we are on solid ground here, and suggests you're not the free-ranging frog that you purport to be. The NY Post and Daily Mail are reliable sources for what happens on television.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not giving into anything. Tabloids are not reliable sources for biographical claims of that nature. For all you know she was misquoted, or the sense of the quote changes because no context was provided by the source. That is why we require those reliable sources, so there is no wiggling room and we can be on solid ground, as you say. §FreeRangeFrogcroak02:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I also removed that quote to the "Manhattan Digest", which I assume only nine people in the world read... let's be careful about what we put in here. This is still a BLP, regardless of threats or any other behavior by the subject or people associated with her. §FreeRangeFrogcroak02:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like you caved. If you believe the NY Post is an unreliable source, then why is it still there in the reference section to back up the current line in Wikipedia which says "She believes 20% of children in America are mis-diagnosed as having mental illness ... Nicolino became and remains an outspoken critic of the over-prescription of drugs, especially to children"? So the NY Post is not trustworthy when it says, essentially, that Nicolino, herself, described herself as having past problems with prescription medication, but it is trustworthy when it makes a statement about her supposed statement about children being misdiagnosed for mental illness? Hmmmm? Plus, the whole idea of the Bravo show LA Shrinks is summarized in an article in Psychology Today, that think your life sucks? Just look at your own therapist’s life. Now there’s a hot mess. (see bottom of paragraph 2). Essentially, the show is about the real lives of therapists, their problems, their issues, so Nicolino revealing on TV of her problems with prescription medication in the past is thoroughly consistent with the NY Post and Daily Mail accounts. Last, such information about Nicolino revealing her past problems with prescription medication is not that 'defamatory', by today's terms -- she revealed it herself, on TV; if there are any problems in what is going on here, in terms of Nicolino's career, they are caused by Nicolino herself trying to straddle two worlds: (1) being a reputable psychologist (maintains confidentiality of clients, keeps focus off of her own problems and on her clients' problems, etc) versus (2) being a reality TV star who appears on skitzy shows like LA Shrinks where she prances around in a bikini or underwear, smokes, drinks, talks about her use of sex toys, and talks about her past problems with prescription medication, for the purpose of trying to keep ratings up, appeal to popular audiences who like soft porn and such. What Wikipedia should do is cover what's out there, neutrally, objectively, reporting what the sources say; when you censor Wikipedia to remove details which you feel are 'defamatory' or controversial, you paint a distorted picture, and in a tiny way, work towards undermining Wikipedia's credibility, and cause people to wonder whether certain contributors here are being or will be paid off by lawyers or theatrical agents. Right now, the Nicolino article is a borderline advertisement for a reality TV star.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, I have handled hundreds of cases like these, on and off Wiki. People writing to OTRS screaming that they're going to sue every editor and IP that touched the article, the Wikimedia Foundation, Jimmy Wales and the Easter Bunny. We do not "cave in" to legal threats and demands. The NY Post is a tabloid and regardless of the nature of the subject's work, it is not now nor will it ever be an acceptable source for a claim that a living person is or was addicted to drugs. It just isn't. You find a good source for that (and you've been around long enough to know what a good source is) and I will tell the subject, her lawyers and the ninja assassin they hire to off me that it's too bad, but the information stays. Until then, it needs to stay off. And the only reason why I didn't remove the rest of the tabloid crap is because if I did, you'd be left with a one-liner stub. The ticket is 2014082310000701 if you want secondary confirmation from another volunteer. However the existence of a ticket or anything else makes no difference. I would have removed all that if I had seen it because it had landed on BLP/N or whatever. §FreeRangeFrogcroak15:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
