Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) Shortcuts WP:NOTGOSSIPWP:NOTGOSSIP WP:NOTDIARYWP:NOTDIARY Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual...
Click to read more »two celebrities. Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTSCANDAL Hkfilmbuff (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Keep, WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTSCANDAL are not the excuses...
Click to read more »WP:NEWSORGS but are instead just blogs, especially odialive.com, and 3) the WP:NOTGOSSIP nature of the pieces. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)...
Click to read more »ROBLOX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wikipedia is WP:NOTGOSSIP. We do not spread rumors or myths about other subjects like this. Jalen...
Click to read more »itself with facts Gbawden (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Delete fails WP:NOTGOSSIP. None of these claims are supported by reliable sources. Funny Pika! 17:19...
Click to read more »and the merge. PackMecEng (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Delete - WP:NOTGOSSIP, fails WP:N and may even be WP:POVFORK - pick one. It's gossip based on...
Click to read more »Delete per nom. Me5000 (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Rapper disputes are as interesting as any other neighbourhood disputes...
Click to read more »This section probably doesn't violate either WP:BLP, exactly, or WP:NOTGOSSIP, exactly, but it sure does skirt close to it. Beyond that, it just sucks...
Click to read more »and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Lacks high-quality coverage, WP:1E is also relevant. Kelob2678 (talk)...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) Although the subject is deceased, I think this falls under WP:NOTGOSSIP. This article appears to be a collection of rumors written in an unencyclopedic...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not pass WP:N and violates WP:PROMO/WP:NPOV, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and WP:OR. scope_creepTalk 23:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »redirect could be an option too. Other events listed in the page fail WP:NOTGOSSIP. Underpaid Intern (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »albums under a label, etc. There is a "controversy" which is basically WP:NOTGOSSIP. CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »though. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC) Delete - Per WP:NOTGOSSIP. We are in tabloid territory when we are writing about fashion trends...
Click to read more »Wikipedia policies all detailed at WP:NOT (namely WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and especially WP:RUMOUR, since none of the parties involved have confirmed...
Click to read more »telling that this is the only "Rumors about <whatever>"[1] page WP has. WP:NOTGOSSIP (1&3). Anything usefull can be merged to Misinformation and rumors about...
Click to read more »just a rumour with nothing to back it. Possibly also creeping into WP:NOTGOSSIP violation. Couple sources worth a mention at parent article. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>...
Click to read more »from smaller entertainment websites is generally trivial. See also WP:NOTGOSSIP. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Delete - horrible...
Click to read more »01:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Delete Who. ----ing. Cares. WP:NOTFB. WP:NOTGOSSIP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Delete Obviously fails...
Click to read more »Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Delete, including per WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:NOTDIARY, which encourages us to exclude coverage of gossip and trivia...
Click to read more »media that would make it true. This just strikes to me like a bit of WP:NOTGOSSIP hearsay released on a slow news day. Funny Pika! 07:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)...
Click to read more »gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP. Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that...
Click to read more »NineMSN. Some are just straight-up gossip. While I'm conscious of WP:NOTGOSSIP, this is "entertainment news" type gossip which has come from various...
Click to read more »(talk) 02:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC) This whole article is a bloated WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:ROUTINE hitpiece. At best, this needs selectively merging into the...
Click to read more »party membership, him losing his title) that are different from what WP:NOTGOSSIP refers to, which are articles that focus on celebrity relationship scandals...
Click to read more »article on something so delicate that comes off as WP:FORUM or even WP:NOTGOSSIP? HĐ (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC) An indiscriminate collection...
Click to read more »show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that...
Click to read more »people for the neurodiversity cause, and both are speculative... see WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC) I've been following...
Click to read more »soibangla (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Just because something is in the news does not mean it becomes a Wikipedia...
Click to read more »scope. As the first AfD discussion suggested, neither WP:NOTNEWS nor WP:NOTGOSSIP necessarily preclude this article's existence, given that the topic, even...
Click to read more »Translate). This tabloid content is not suitable for inclusion per WP:NOTGOSSIP. In the section described as a discussion of her television work, the...
Click to read more »show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that...
Click to read more »(talk) 23:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC) Delete - Fails Notability and WP:NOTGOSSIP The majority of this article is about their obsession with looking Korean...
Click to read more »articles beginning "Coming out of" even if they do meet WP:GNG per WP:NOTGOSSIP.--Launchballer 10:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Delete per WP:NEVENT, WP:SUSTAINED...
Click to read more »additional in this article that could justifiably be merged there (per WP:NOTGOSSIP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosbif73 (talk • contribs) 11:54...
Click to read more »think this comes under WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA and WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTDIRECTORY then I despair. Draftifying is pointless; it won't...
Click to read more »evidence Bosworth actually believes/said that. Clear violation of WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NEWSORG ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information...
Click to read more »This is a coatrack, it could be scandal mongering a la WP:SOAP a.k.a. WP:NOTGOSSIP with the current title. The topic of the content, IMHO, doesn't even rise...
Click to read more »notability. We need better quality sources than these. WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:NOTGOSSIP applies.4meter4 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC) NOTNEWS focuses on events...
Click to read more »money, or that others spout in reaction, and WP is not a crystal ball, WP:NOTGOSSIP nor, per WP:SOAPBOX, is it a vehicle for Nutt's promotion of his venture...
Click to read more »per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really...
Click to read more »responses. Therefore, the article's relevance persists. The argument of WP:NOTGOSSIP does not hold up. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and that is...
Click to read more »encyclopedic context. Within the same section of the policy, there is also WP:NOTGOSSIP, e.g. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches...
Click to read more »high quality sources), per WP:REDFLAG, per Wikipedia's WP:BLP and WP:NOTGOSSIP policy, avoid directly using these sources and it is advised to use more...
Click to read more »the press belongs in Wikipedia. WP:NOT has a specific clause about WP:NOTGOSSIP. And as for the number of daily pageviews meaning anything at all in our...
Click to read more »citing WP:NOTGOSSIP. I did the right thing. I brought it up on the talk page with WP:ROC and pointed out that the citation of WP:NOTGOSSIP is incredibly...
Click to read more »the article. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Delete as WP:NOTGOSSIP Avengers 4 rumors. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)...
Click to read more »guidelines! Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum ,WP:PERSONAL, Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIP,Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, WP:CIVIL --Miraclexix (talk)...
Click to read more »become its own article. -- Banjeboi 00:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Seriously, we're debating this? --Philosopher Let us reason together...
Click to read more »notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTWHOSWHO. SpinningSpark 11:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC) I agree...
Click to read more »particular field so the only thing we have in our hand is gossip and rumors WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NEWSORG that generates to often a specific point-of-view and thus...
Click to read more »source material." Further, I would also contend that we're getting into WP:NOTGOSSIP territory with many/most of these sources. I would second JoelleJay's...
Click to read more »not uniquely of interest to swifties, but in my opinion it breaks WP:NOTGOSSIP. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Delete -- (merge...
Click to read more »non-signicant legal dispute is tabloid fodder and should not be used per WP:NOTGOSSIP and policy at WP:BLPGOSSIP. 4meter4 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Comment...
Click to read more »("pointless trivia" and the like) but some are grounded in policies like WP:NOTGOSSIP, potentially (potentially, because they are not unrebutted) valid WP:RS...
Click to read more »qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. WP:NOTGOSSIP: Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played...
Click to read more »notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. There is nothing of substance in the news coverage. --Викидим (talk)...
Click to read more »independently notable enough to meet the GNG and NOT tests (particularly NOTGOSSIP). Even if one were to consider that he did meet those conditions, there...
Click to read more »Thanks for providing the diffs, I hope Juzumaru knows about WP:RGW and WP:NOTGOSSIP. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC) 126/Hijiri88's...
Click to read more »"there is no definitive proof on this subject, only speculation" and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Naue7 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC) Even if this is a BLP issue...
Click to read more »Gawker has always been 'gossip blog', hence it comes in conflict with WP:NOTGOSSIP. ― Padenton|✉ 04:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Sure, Gawker is still in some...
Click to read more »14:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid, it is WP:NOTGOSSIP, and it is WP:NOTNEWS, e.g. most newsworthy events do not qualify for...
Click to read more »@IgnatiusofLondon) I don't really see a need to try to amend NOTGOSSIP again. NOTGOSSIP is basically an anti-trivia policy on celebs and athletes to keep...
Click to read more »girlfriend despite the fact that one of the policies of Wikipedia is WP:NOTGOSSIP? Are you shitting me kidding? Trillfendi (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »and the merge. PackMecEng (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Delete - WP:NOTGOSSIP, fails WP:N and may even be WP:POVFORK - pick one. It's gossip based on...
Click to read more »significance." Ravenswing 01:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Delete and redirect per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. cookiemonster755 (talk) 13:29, 4 August...
Click to read more »our policies and guidelines. The application of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTGOSSIP may also help trim content, and WP:NOTNEWS and its relationship to WP:BLP1E...
Click to read more »two celebrities. Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTSCANDAL Hkfilmbuff (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Keep, WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTSCANDAL are not the excuses...
Click to read more »possibly WP:FRINGE. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC) WP:NOTGOSSIP --Cybercobra (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC) I bluelinked the missing...
Click to read more »existed and plus this is not the place for trivia and gossip (see WP:NOTGOSSIP), like really, why would we care whether the father attended the subject's...
Click to read more »significant RS coverage. (t · c) buidhe 08:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC) WP:NOTGOSSIP ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Do not retarget...
Click to read more »is WP:NOTGOSSIP (read it!) and also somewhat WP:NOTNEWS. These efforts to extend the storms into WP don't fit perfectly into either but NOTGOSSIP is closest...
Click to read more »guidelines! Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum ,WP:PERSONAL, Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIP,Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, WP:CIVIL --Miraclexix (talk)...
Click to read more »soibangla (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Just because something is in the news does not mean it becomes a Wikipedia...
Click to read more »Translate). This tabloid content is not suitable for inclusion per WP:NOTGOSSIP. In the section described as a discussion of her television work, the...
Click to read more »WP:NEWSORGS but are instead just blogs, especially odialive.com, and 3) the WP:NOTGOSSIP nature of the pieces. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)...
Click to read more »any kind of articles named "Rumors about..." become questionable per WP:NOTGOSSIP. The Sesame Street article is 50kB size ,and this rumors content fork...
Click to read more »August 2019 (UTC) Delete. Per WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NOTGOSSIP. This case might in the future have a lasting impact, and Yaniv herself...
Click to read more »money, or that others spout in reaction, and WP is not a crystal ball, WP:NOTGOSSIP nor, per WP:SOAPBOX, is it a vehicle for Nutt's promotion of his venture...
Click to read more »European elections, in which immigration is an hot topic), for sure it is WP:NOTGOSSIP. P1221 (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Keep - This is an important event...
Click to read more »media that would make it true. This just strikes to me like a bit of WP:NOTGOSSIP hearsay released on a slow news day. Funny Pika! 07:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)...
Click to read more »independently notable enough to meet the GNG and NOT tests (particularly NOTGOSSIP). Even if one were to consider that he did meet those conditions, there...
Click to read more »Delete per nom. Me5000 (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Rapper disputes are as interesting as any other neighbourhood disputes...
Click to read more »particular field so the only thing we have in our hand is gossip and rumors WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NEWSORG that generates to often a specific point-of-view and thus...
Click to read more »show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that...
Click to read more »per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really...
Click to read more »our policies and guidelines. The application of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTGOSSIP may also help trim content, and WP:NOTNEWS and its relationship to WP:BLP1E...
Click to read more »mostly referring to are WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP. Your claims of indiscriminateness are in my opinion flawed. Reading the...
Click to read more »redirect could be an option too. Other events listed in the page fail WP:NOTGOSSIP. Underpaid Intern (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »provoke public interest and excitement at the expense of accuracy. WP:NOTGOSSIP applies. In no way does the yourobserver.com story or its attached interview...
Click to read more »per WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically its sections WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Having an article for something as routine and...
Click to read more »become its own article. -- Banjeboi 00:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Seriously, we're debating this? --Philosopher Let us reason together...
Click to read more »("pointless trivia" and the like) but some are grounded in policies like WP:NOTGOSSIP, potentially (potentially, because they are not unrebutted) valid WP:RS...
Click to read more »non-signicant legal dispute is tabloid fodder and should not be used per WP:NOTGOSSIP and policy at WP:BLPGOSSIP. 4meter4 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Comment...
Click to read more »fortunately, Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is also not a gossip column (wp:notgossip) or in the business of scandal mongering (wp:notscandal) to garner an...
Click to read more »the press belongs in Wikipedia. WP:NOT has a specific clause about WP:NOTGOSSIP. And as for the number of daily pageviews meaning anything at all in our...
Click to read more »encyclopedic context. Within the same section of the policy, there is also WP:NOTGOSSIP, e.g. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches...
Click to read more »any kind of articles named "Rumors about..." become questionable per WP:NOTGOSSIP. The Sesame Street article is 50kB size ,and this rumors content fork...
Click to read more »JSTOR · TWL) Although the subject is deceased, I think this falls under WP:NOTGOSSIP. This article appears to be a collection of rumors written in an unencyclopedic...
Click to read more »think this comes under WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA and WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTDIRECTORY then I despair. Draftifying is pointless; it won't...
Click to read more »telling that this is the only "Rumors about <whatever>"[14] page WP has. WP:NOTGOSSIP (1&3). Anything usefull can be merged to Misinformation and rumors about...
Click to read more »are not a newspaper, and not part of the blogosphere. = WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP. The actual significance of this event will not be known for a long time...
Click to read more »and speculation. Editors should be cautious, since WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTGOSSIP tell us to avoid gossip. Many of the articles are summaries of other sources...
Click to read more »(talk) 23:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC) Delete - Fails Notability and WP:NOTGOSSIP The majority of this article is about their obsession with looking Korean...
Click to read more »evidence Bosworth actually believes/said that. Clear violation of WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NEWSORG ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information...
Click to read more »2012 argue that the material is not encyclopedic (WP:NOTDIARY and WP:NOTGOSSIP) and WP:UNDUE. The material was recently rewritten to resolve WP:V and...
Click to read more »article on something so delicate that comes off as WP:FORUM or even WP:NOTGOSSIP? HĐ (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC) An indiscriminate collection...
Click to read more »notability. We need better quality sources than these. WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:NOTGOSSIP applies.4meter4 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC) NOTNEWS focuses on events...
Click to read more »people for the neurodiversity cause, and both are speculative... see WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC) I've been following...
Click to read more »fortunately, Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is also not a gossip column (wp:notgossip) or in the business of scandal mongering (wp:notscandal) to garner an...
Click to read more »August 2019 (UTC) Delete. Per WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NOTGOSSIP. This case might in the future have a lasting impact, and Yaniv herself...
Click to read more »girlfriend despite the fact that one of the policies of Wikipedia is WP:NOTGOSSIP? Are you shitting me kidding? Trillfendi (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)...
Click to read more »NineMSN. Some are just straight-up gossip. While I'm conscious of WP:NOTGOSSIP, this is "entertainment news" type gossip which has come from various...
Click to read more »Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Delete, including per WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:NOTDIARY, which encourages us to exclude coverage of gossip and trivia...
Click to read more »then it's not under GOSSIP. The only thing in there that applies is NOTGOSSIP: "Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played...
Click to read more »provoke public interest and excitement at the expense of accuracy. WP:NOTGOSSIP applies. In no way does the yourobserver.com story or its attached interview...
Click to read more »gossip that Luder got into a dispute with his neighbors about some cat. WP:NOTGOSSIP. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Agreed. But that's why this...
Click to read more »itself with facts Gbawden (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Delete fails WP:NOTGOSSIP. None of these claims are supported by reliable sources. Funny Pika! 17:19...
Click to read more »gg and Tubefilter), Nickiswift which is a tabloid gossip website (WP:NOTGOSSIP), and AZcentral which is likely the only reliable source of the lot. Add...
Click to read more »on the relevant policies and guidelines being applied. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP aka WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE,etc. Editorial judgement matters, as always....
Click to read more »are not a newspaper, and not part of the blogosphere. = WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP. The actual significance of this event will not be known for a long time...
Click to read more »publishes celebrity gossip, which is discouraged in WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTGOSSIP. For what it's worth, this magazine tends to publish more positive (and...
Click to read more »whole article is mostly speculations and gossip. Obviously, Wiki is WP:NOTGOSSIP and not WP:FUTURE. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Comment...
Click to read more »This is a coatrack, it could be scandal mongering a la WP:SOAP a.k.a. WP:NOTGOSSIP with the current title. The topic of the content, IMHO, doesn't even rise...
Click to read more »gossip site". It should generally be avoided per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTGOSSIP. We've previously blacklisted gossip blogs (such as Just Jared, mentioned...
Click to read more »per WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically its sections WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Having an article for something as routine and...
Click to read more »several other WP policies and guidelines as well, including WP:NOT (WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:INDISCRIMINATE), WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH. Much of the content and...
Click to read more »mostly referring to are WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP. Your claims of indiscriminateness are in my opinion flawed. Reading the...
Click to read more »gossip about [(bernie vs hilary) vs trump], and we are an encyclopedia, NOTGOSSIP/NOTTABLOID and NOTNEWS On yet another level of analysis, someone would...
Click to read more »"CELEBRITY GOSSIPY BIO", and should be avoided per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTGOSSIP. — Newslinger talk 19:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC) No As per the arguments...
Click to read more »it. Dependent on whether you consider that the content may violate WP:NOTGOSSIP or similar concerns (therefore preferably shouldn't be immediately visible...
Click to read more »WP:NOTWHOSWHO offers some guidance on this (related to BLP1E), as does NOTGOSSIP, which licenses selective exclusion of facts. We don't need to detail...
Click to read more »watch | logs | views) The section "Personal life" seems to violate WP:NOTGOSSIP and some BLP issues. I'm inclined to remove it entirely, but I'd like...
Click to read more »April 2013 (UTC) I respectfully point out that WP:BLPGOSSIP (and also WP:NOTGOSSIP) is intended to stop people from inserting unverifiable and irrelevant...
Click to read more »can't do it because they do not exist. I know Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:RUMOUR, and WP:NOTCATALOG. I am not implying or stating that is. None...
Click to read more »They even vandalize the notes! If I have to edit war with people over WP:NOTGOSSIP I’m doing it for the betterment of the article, not to disrupt or own...
Click to read more »the justification for this under BLP? I have other issues with this per NOTGOSSIP, but I was reading the version above (which I did not write - see below)...
Click to read more »every facet of his life needs to be included even if verified per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Yet more junk celebrity...
Click to read more »which editors raised WP:BLP concerns under WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP etc. about mentioning an arrest. Right now, the content has been deleted...
Click to read more »even if reliably sourced. With a nod to WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:1E, WP:NOTGOSSIP etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Yes, I agree...
Click to read more »This section probably doesn't violate either WP:BLP, exactly, or WP:NOTGOSSIP, exactly, but it sure does skirt close to it. Beyond that, it just sucks...
Click to read more »with fashion with fire works and the whole nine yards... but Really? WP:NOTGOSSIP. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)...
Click to read more »popularity vs notability nicely. Just what makes Barron notable? Gossip? WP:NOTGOSSIP. His possible future? WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I'll add that WP:BLP needs to followed...
Click to read more »responses. Therefore, the article's relevance persists. The argument of WP:NOTGOSSIP does not hold up. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and that is...
Click to read more »(talk) 23:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC) - fixed 'not a tabloid' link, although WP:NOTGOSSIP also applies. Beccaynr (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Update: I removed...
Click to read more »to pushing her against a wall, and they divorced.". But again, WP is NOTGOSSIP. Bottom line, the proposed content is gutter crawling trash. 08:07, 8...
Click to read more »like End of the British monarchy. But for now, we've moved beyond WP:NOTGOSSIP into a major issue of public debate here in the UK and it feels foolish...
Click to read more »Wikipedia policies all detailed at WP:NOT (namely WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and especially WP:RUMOUR, since none of the parties involved have confirmed...
Click to read more »to be) better sources. I'm also not convinced that it rises above WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:NOTNEWS. And multiple editors feel the same way. (I mean, Masem and...
Click to read more »01:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Delete Who. ----ing. Cares. WP:NOTFB. WP:NOTGOSSIP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Delete Obviously fails...
Click to read more »though. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC) Delete - Per WP:NOTGOSSIP. We are in tabloid territory when we are writing about fashion trends...
Click to read more »gg and Tubefilter), Nickiswift which is a tabloid gossip website (WP:NOTGOSSIP), and AZcentral which is likely the only reliable source of the lot. Add...
Click to read more »journalism that not only is not reliable for a BLP, but also runs afoul of WP:NOTGOSSIP. Banks Irk (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Apart from individual concerns...
Click to read more »community consensus has shaped its application. Yes, WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and the rest of WP:BLP all matter — and I’ve cited or echoed each of...
Click to read more »generally deals with my concerns. I'm still not quite sure about how NOTGOSSIP plays in here (if you say it in a song, and a secondary source covers...
Click to read more »article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC) As we know WP:NOTGOSSIP goes out the window when ... there's some juicy gossip. Also, basic standards...
Click to read more »article. Cortador (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Those aren't applicable here...
Click to read more »albums under a label, etc. There is a "controversy" which is basically WP:NOTGOSSIP. CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »source material." Further, I would also contend that we're getting into WP:NOTGOSSIP territory with many/most of these sources. I would second JoelleJay's...
Click to read more »notability. The only part that discusses notability is point 4, i.e. WP:NOTGOSSIP / WP:NOTDIARY, which recommends against adding trivia. I'd argue, however...
Click to read more »WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NPOV; that fail other aspects of NOT, like WP:NOTWHOSWHO, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTSOCIAL, WP:NOTCV, WP:NOTMEMORIAL...
Click to read more »not uniquely of interest to swifties, but in my opinion it breaks WP:NOTGOSSIP. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Delete -- (merge...
Click to read more »topics (not me) should judge what to remove per WP:EXCESSDETAIL and WP:NOTGOSSIP; and in a few places Vietnamese terms or names need to be accompanied...
Click to read more »14:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid, it is WP:NOTGOSSIP, and it is WP:NOTNEWS, e.g. most newsworthy events do not qualify for...
Click to read more »qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. WP:NOTGOSSIP: Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played...
Click to read more »from smaller entertainment websites is generally trivial. See also WP:NOTGOSSIP. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Delete - horrible...
Click to read more »additional in this article that could justifiably be merged there (per WP:NOTGOSSIP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosbif73 (talk • contribs) 11:54...
Click to read more »several other WP policies and guidelines as well, including WP:NOT (WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:INDISCRIMINATE), WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH. Much of the content and...
Click to read more »per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really...
Click to read more »Fleshbot article, which was removed and not archived elsewhere. Going by WP:NOTGOSSIP, I feel like this is something readers to her article would have a reasonable...
Click to read more »corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of WP:NOTGOSSIP, especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- Patar...
Click to read more »significance." Ravenswing 01:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Delete and redirect per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. cookiemonster755 (talk) 13:29, 4 August...
Click to read more »with encyclopedic relevance. Pehaps you where thinking of WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC) You’re treating multiple incidents...
Click to read more »sources seem to be framing it as a rumour ([34][35]), which fails WP:NOTGOSSIP in addition to BLP sourcing concerns. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions...
Click to read more »existed and plus this is not the place for trivia and gossip (see WP:NOTGOSSIP), like really, why would we care whether the father attended the subject's...
Click to read more »and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Lacks high-quality coverage, WP:1E is also relevant. Kelob2678 (talk)...
Click to read more »list what amounts to a bunch of unsubstantiated celebrity gossip. WP:NOTGOSSIP is relevant. I think the closure focused too much on the number of !votes...
Click to read more »notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. There is nothing of substance in the news coverage. --Викидим (talk)...
Click to read more »relying upon what I think is a misinterpretation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP in order to selectively exclude unflattering information about the subject—including...
Click to read more »FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Does not pass WP:N and violates WP:PROMO/WP:NPOV, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and WP:OR. scope_creepTalk 23:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Note: This discussion...
Click to read more »articles beginning "Coming out of" even if they do meet WP:GNG per WP:NOTGOSSIP.--Launchballer 10:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Delete per WP:NEVENT, WP:SUSTAINED...
Click to read more »with encyclopedic relevance. Pehaps you where thinking of WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC) You’re treating multiple incidents...
Click to read more »WP:NOTWHOSWHO offers some guidance on this (related to BLP1E), as does NOTGOSSIP, which licenses selective exclusion of facts. We don't need to detail...
Click to read more »just a rumour with nothing to back it. Possibly also creeping into WP:NOTGOSSIP violation. Couple sources worth a mention at parent article. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>...
Click to read more »like End of the British monarchy. But for now, we've moved beyond WP:NOTGOSSIP into a major issue of public debate here in the UK and it feels foolish...
Click to read more »European elections, in which immigration is an hot topic), for sure it is WP:NOTGOSSIP. P1221 (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) Keep - This is an important event...
Click to read more »whole article is mostly speculations and gossip. Obviously, Wiki is WP:NOTGOSSIP and not WP:FUTURE. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Comment...
Click to read more »popularity vs notability nicely. Just what makes Barron notable? Gossip? WP:NOTGOSSIP. His possible future? WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I'll add that WP:BLP needs to followed...
Click to read more »(talk) 02:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC) This whole article is a bloated WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:ROUTINE hitpiece. At best, this needs selectively merging into the...
Click to read more »per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really...
Click to read more »can't do it because they do not exist. I know Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:RUMOUR, and WP:NOTCATALOG. I am not implying or stating that is. None...
Click to read more »party membership, him losing his title) that are different from what WP:NOTGOSSIP refers to, which are articles that focus on celebrity relationship scandals...
Click to read more »notability. The only part that discusses notability is point 4, i.e. WP:NOTGOSSIP / WP:NOTDIARY, which recommends against adding trivia. I'd argue, however...
Click to read more »list what amounts to a bunch of unsubstantiated celebrity gossip. WP:NOTGOSSIP is relevant. I think the closure focused too much on the number of !votes...
Click to read more »another type of work such as a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS), gossip column (WP:NOTGOSSIP) or statsbook (WP:NOTSTATS). For example, "Not every facet of a celebrity's...
Click to read more »the best course of action would be to point them in the direction of WP:NOTGOSSIP, and tell them that Wikipedia doesn't care either way, since it doesn't...
Click to read more »Basically violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDB, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Despite reverts with proper explanations...
Click to read more »"coat", per COATRACK). Similarly, it fails WP:NOTNEWS, specifically 1) WP:NOTGOSSIP, because Dalla and Nijjar's connection was also only alleged. ― "Ghost...
Click to read more »