Talk:Andressa Urach

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 sourced must 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.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	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 the arts and entertainment work group.

Brazil Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andressa Urach. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion without explanation[edit]

David Gerard: You removed duly referenced content with an edit summary. I undid your removal and gave my rationale in my edit summary. Now you reverted me again, removing the content once again, but without any rebuttal of my argument. Can you please counter my arguments and justify this reiterated removal of content? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a claim from a bad source, second hand in a source that's only slightly less worse. This isn't how to add encyclopedic content. Is there anything about this in something that would pass muster as a WP:RS? If not, large chunks of the section should probably be removed as not encyclopedic - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a British tabloid decided to do and to publish an interview with a Brazilian model that is otherwise unknown in the English world, is, in my view, more notable than any of the other trivia in this page about this Brazilian model. And, from all the non-notable stuff that is already here, this is the part you decided to remove? And, the fact that a Brazilian model is speaking up in English against feminine vanity and preoccupation with body enhancing chemicals also has a special, almost poignant human interest, much more than any of the other irrelevant fashion and feminine vanity trivia already in the page. But again, this is precisely the sentence you decide to arbitrarily remove, for some reason. But all this, this whole article in fact, is rather irrelevant alltogether. But at least you answered my question, and all this is not worth any more irrelevant argument anyhow, and so I'll just let it go now. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's explicitly a claim of the Daily Mail as evidence of notability, and, per WP:DAILYMAIL, it just isn't - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]