Jump to content

Talk:Michelle Phan

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.244.81.248 (talk) at 20:10, 22 March 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Why was the "Controversy" section removed?

There used to be a section detailing a controversial incident in which Michelle publicly demanded her Twitter followers harass and abuse a young girl who'd criticized one of her videos. Why was this section removed? It wasn't vandalism, as the incident actually happened and was documented by various online sources. I think the section was removed because somebody doesn't want Michelle to be criticized in any way. I've noticed this with other Wikipedia pages. I'm not sure if Wikipedia is as objective as it claims to be. 66.244.81.248 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early life?

Didn't this page used to have a brief biography about Phan before she became a celebrity on YouTube? You know, her poor background? Why was that removed? It wasn't libelous in any manner. lullabying (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing "both her father and mother were born in Vietnam" to her parents both emigrated from Vietnam. (reason: the sentense already contains 2 instances of the word "born") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaychatter0 (talkcontribs) 15:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle's picture

Does anyone have a free picture of Michelle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaychatter0 (talkcontribs) 10:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of March 2014, there is a photo. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

website

aficionado (or afficionado) is spelled wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaychatter0 (talkcontribs) 16:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC) above issue has been corrected Ebaychatter0 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one "f" - but it doesn't matter. The whole section is plagiarized from her site and by Wiki rules and MOS must be reverted. Besides, it's useless puffery.Sensei48 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me remove peacock words from the aricle.Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

It seems there is a lot of vandalism on this BLP. Should we protect the page? (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually think of page protection as generally a short-term solution to a specific attack - either because something has happened in the life of the subject (marriage, arrest) to create a flurry of attention or because a single editor is pushing their point of view or intent on causing graffiti. This seems like random page noise. I get my policy from: WP:ROUGH. EBY (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I couldn't find a single news cite or reliable resource for this subject besides their own work on YouTube, Twitter, etc. EBY (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. On March 14, 2014, the article has forbes as a reference. Today, March 14, 2014, I added text with a cite from Women's Wear Daily, a third party non-YouTube source. Becuase of the text of the WWD article, she is now wiki notable. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]