Talk:Disappearance of Amy Lynn Bradley
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 July 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| 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. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr.Phil photo
editHas the woman in this photo been identified to be her? the sentence presumes it is her.92.0.40.230 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I did some digging around and you can find the page in the Internet Archive where those "Dr.Phil"/escort ad pictures came from (they're in the link - semi-NSFW)
^The earliest the pictures were posted was in Jun 04. She would have been be approx. 30 at that time, but the girl in the pictures looks older than 30 IMO
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Article needs some major clean up
editI did some basic copyedit, removed some conflicting information, and tried to clean it up as best I could. But this article still has major issues that go beyond my editing skill. Right now it reads like article on some true crime second rate website rather than a proper encyclopedic article.DragonFury (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I did a bit of cleanup but it really needs a major rewrite. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with DragonFury - this article is a hot mess right now.
editI added a couple of citation requests and then just gave up because editor CocoaBeens (I'm sorry, I don't know how to tag/link to someone or even if we're supposed to) has added a lot of conjecture that I'm not even sure how to address. I didn't want to just start deleting things that didn't make sense; my changes in the years I've been an editor have been almost entirely limited to grammar and mechanics. But this article, at this point, really does read like a tabloid. Tyrnill (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)