Talk:Everleigh Club

Merger proposal

The following discussion is a concluded merger debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was the nomination Merge all (3 for merge all, 1 for merge bios only).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a great deal of overlap in these three articles. Each article is mostly about the brothel business they ran together, and each article seems to tell arbitrarily different parts of the same story. Other than being born and dying separately, the separate sisters' articles don't say anything different about the sisters themselves. This should all be wrapped into one. - BierHerr 01:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• i agree with the above comments. i support consolidation into a single article. LurkingInChicago 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Aside from bands, it is rare to see biographies redirect to other articles even with significant topical overlap. Articles should be cleaned up and wikified. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If merged only merge bios, keep brothel separate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge - put all three into the Club's article, as the sisters are not otherwise notable in any way. --Orange Mike 21:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is a concluded merger debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality and Citations

This article is little more than a puff piece. The language needs to be checked in all sections, e.g. "high-class" or "bustling" are fine for an article in the Chicago Visitor's Guide, but not for an encyclopedia. Especially the sections extolling the virtues of the Everleigh sisters as employers need to be toned down for POV, and if someone is going to make claims like "a legacy that is still famous today" some kind of citation needs to go with it. Hmoulding (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations

I've removed some text that was taken verbatim from the PBS link listed in the External links section, but not cited as a source. I suspect there are more but don't have time now to check the whole article. Kendall-K1 (talk)

I just tagged the article as partial copyvio by User:Kariedee in 2013. Although the source is dated to 2015, I want to make sure that there is no other source that both could have taken from (e.g. a non-digital source), especially since it's completely unsourced. ansh666 02:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The PBS source is here [1]. It is undated, but is copyright 1999-2003. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)