Talk:Carly Pope

message: Mathew, what's the point to deleting the caly-pope.com site reference? The site owner is in constant contact with her agent and Carly herself.
Csylcox 14:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a database of links, see WP:EL. I do find it odd that a new account would just show up moments after another account, which had mostly been used just to edit this article, to re-add that link. Being in contact with the actress does not make the site any more reputable, there are many fansites that are in contact with the person they're a fan of. Matthew 14:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." Granted, some of the other links might not be suitable, but carly-pope.com is. What you also find odd is irrelevant to this topic, but my account is not new.Csylcox 14:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That may be true, but a self-published website is not considered a reliable source, see WP:BLP#Sources. The article needs to be referenced with verifiable reliable sources to meet Wikipedia core content policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research. dissolvetalk 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  carly-pope.com deletion 

message: Should the carly-pope.com website be removed from references or external links? Dissolve thinks it should be removed but Pezzy does not, and personally I don't think so as it is the only site that has any in-depth knowledge on her (IMDB has some but have seen carly-pope.com have some new data then IMDB is updated a few days later along with MTV cite the site). So, do other ppl think it should be allowed? From the WP guidelines (WP:ELMAYBE #4, WP:ELOFFICIAL third paragraph, WP:SP third paragraph) it seems it would be an exception to the Links To Avoid but we need consensus from more than three editors running around editing things back and forth.--Csylcox (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Third opinion: I'm pretty sure WP:ELNO doesn't apply when you're talking about references; for this, you're looking at WP:RS. Is that one source being used for that whole paragraph? If it is, then something is really wrong. You should be able to find sources for nearly that whole paragraph; I just added one for the Itty Bitty line. As to whether or not carly-pope.com is a reliable source, I would say that use it only where absolutely necessary - and in this case, it seems like it shouldn't be used. If you had taken this to WP:RSN, they would have asked you what it was being used to source. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  carly-pope.com external linking 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carly Pope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022092721/http://www.tv.com:80/carly-pope/person/1752/biography.html to http://www.tv.com/carly-pope/person/1752/biography.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified