Talk:Elyse Sewell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.


Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2005 June 14. The result of the discussion was No consensus, which defaults keep.

"Sewell has BAs in Biology and Spanish" - wouldn't it be a BA in Biology and Spanish?


Don't tease, what did she do that was the 15th most outrageous thing on TV? Bugloaf 19:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It was the 16th actually :P but yeah what was it? Leftist 16:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it had something to do with her saying that modeling is not 'mentally challenging.' [1][2]
I would have thought it was the profanity-laden rant she gave in the "confessional" about her competitors (the moment I fell in love with her, BTW =). I can't find a source for this "16th most outrageous" thing. Are we sure it's not the 80th "Craziest TV Moment"? Oh, and one more thing: how could she have modeled in Mademoiselle magazine when that article says the last issue was November 2001? - dcljr (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The article should mentioned what was said - can someone add it, if they know what it was? - Matthew238 08:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else think the quotes here are....well...they sort of reflect negatively on her, dont they? She says a lot of perceptive and contstructive things on her blog, which are often much wittier and contain far fewer expletives. Can someone maybe gather them up? --DaveyE 06:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps putting it in context would be better. Just reading the quote, one could come to think of her as a mean bitch, if they had not seen the show or her. Something about her views on modelling would also be good -07:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sewell, not Elyse

Please note: If you're going to refer to the subject of this article by one name in the text, please use Sewell (following standard encyclopedia style), not Elyse. - dcljr (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boyfriend

"Sewell's boyfriend of six years is Martin Crandall from The Shins." - six years back from when? Something like "they have been dating since x" would be better. Should mention that he was in an episode of ANTM too. - Matthew238 04:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Her blog about the break-up says that they have been dating for 7 years. Since the relationship has stopped, I think it's safe to say they dated "... for 7 years until January 2008 when..." SonicTiff (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mademoiselle impossibility

I've finally removed the claim that she appeared in/on the magazine Mademoiselle, since that magazine went out of business a couple of years before she started modeling (see also my same objection in a previous comment above). I believe the original author of that "fact" (an anon user added it on June 17, 2005) might have been confusing it with a Hong Kong clothing line called Moiselle, but I haven't tried to verify this. - dcljr (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion discussion

I have removed the deletion discussion message at the top of the article for the following reasons:

  • There had been no nominations for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elyse Sewell
  • The person who added the tag did not follow all the steps for nominating an article for deletion, so the existence of the discussion was not logged. I believe that it was nominated for malicious purposes, and should be considered vandalism.

I do believe, however that we need to get together some references to justify the removal of the other banner message on the article.

kju 05:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)