Talk:E. Javier Loya

Writing the article from a neutral point of view.
Hello there editors.

I went ahead and changed the article around to fit the guidelines in writing a Wikipedia article.

See:
 * Writing better articles
 * Article development
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Neutral point of view
 * Notability

I researched and cited all publications that support facts in the article to ensure all the information provided is factual. As well as included good and bad publicity to ensure that the article is written from a neutral point of view. This includes removing all peacock and weasel terms that make the Biography seem more promotional. The terms that stayed are the ones that italicized and defined in the articles themselves.

I will monitor this article and update it as more information of the pending lawsuit or any publicity becomes available.

Mespar20 (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

COI September 2020
Hello I'm just disclosing all the cited material are from reputable news sites around the Houston Texas Area. All of it cited and each citation directly correlated to the article provided.

As for the conflict of interest, I have disclosed this as paid article. I have never met nor talked to E Javier Loya in any means. I was contacted through a 3rd party team to create this article.

All research comes directly from articles online that involve Javier Loya, as well as each article was cited with the date, title, and url.

I have omitted websites with a low domain authority to ensure that the sources included fit the standard.

I have written it from a neutral point by including both good and bad publicity, as well as removing all weasel terms from the article. I have also rewritten it all included material to fit Wikipedia's guidelines, removing all weasel and peacock terms.

I will be added more citations to back up claims, however most articles & interviews are curated from the original sources.

Mespar20 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

As for Original Research, all content included can be fact-check directly by the citations that's included in each section. I included each article to ensure that everything included is verifiable.

Mespar20 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I added 31 Additional citations that support each statement for the article.

Mespar20 (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

COI and Citations
Hello there,

I am moving this article back to the main space due to completion of the article.

I'll address the concerns first:

COI
As for Conflict of interest, I have disclosed on the talk page as seen above I am being paid for this article however, as stated above. However, I have written the article from a neutral point of view to ensure that all information included is factual and there is no original research.

Citations from Reliable Sources
To ensure that the information provided is factual, I have included only sources that include the subject in the article that correlate with each independent claim on the page.

Each source is the source along with the domain authority of the page.

Sources include:
 * Columbia.edu 93/100 DA
 * wsj.com 94/100 DA
 * chron.com 92/100 DA
 * bizjournals.com 91/100 DA
 * businesswire.com 92/100 DA
 * theeagle.com 72/100 DA
 * diverseeducation.com 74/100 DA
 * nytimes.com 94/100 DA
 * kvia.com 73/100 DA
 * observer.com 87/100 DA
 * myplainview.com 59/100 DA
 * houstonchronicle.com 85/100 DA
 * nfl.com 88/100 DA
 * abc13.com 80/100 DA
 * si.com 87/100 DA
 * bloomberg.com 92/100 DA
 * risk.net 75/100 DA
 * pressreader.com 88/100 DA
 * papercitymag.com 74/100 DA
 * prnewswire.com 92/100 DA
 * ft.com 91/100 DA

All of which are well respected journalist and publishers in the community. I don't understand why they aren't considered actual sources, despite being professional journalism?

Other Biographies that have less content and citations, yet still remain undeleted or in a non-draftspace area

 * Trevor Milton 34 citations
 * Swift Transportation 17 citations
 * Knight-Swift 4 Citations
 * Javier Loya 3 Citations
 * Justine Musk 13 Citations
 * Talulah Riley 29 Citations
 * BPM (Sirius XM) 5 Citations
 * Parfait Bitee 0 Citations
 * Studstill 0 Citations
 * Wichabai 2 citations
 * Tinthia ruficollaris 1 citation
 * Norma Group 23 Citations
 * William Walton Kitchin 12 citations
 * Ashok Bajaj 13 Citations
 * Asunción Acosta 1 Citations

That is an example of 15 different articles that do not meet the standards outlined in the Wikipedia guidelines. I followed each guideline to ensure I met the rules.

I will be moving this back into the mainspace to ensure that the information is available.

There is no original research and feel free to overlook my citations to ensure that each citation and reference fits each statement provided. To help, you are able to press Control + F n a browser to search for specific statements.

Thank you and if there are any questions feel free to contact me on my Talk Page.


 * Article with a COI must go through the AfC process, you cannot simply move them to mainspace by yourself. --John B123 (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that. I wish I was made aware earlier, I couldn't find that in any of the provided articled he linked in my page. Thank you very much Mespar20 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please refer to WP:PAID and and follow the guidelines accordingly. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

COI undone
, the original author removed COI template without adequately explaining "why". They are being paid for this page and have acknowledged COI. I have nothing to do with the subject; however i think that this draft should go through AfC. The draft was written in growing praise, admiring the subject in violation of NPOV. The current revision seems less promotional than earlier one. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The author is also engaged in another COI page "Aftermath Pest Professionals" besides E. Javier Loya.  TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you call this "growing praise, admiring the subject"?


 * I get the impression that some AfC reviewers view the COI template as a "speedy deletion tag" and that there is nothing that the COI editor can do to fix the article other than let it be deleted and wait for a non-COI editor to start a new article from scratch. wbm1058 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , The article appears notable which should be create with a neutral point of view. Newcomers often make such mistakes that should be fixed by the reviewers as part of "don't bite newcomers". However, this article is being created for pay which worries me more. The author may consider removing such content that violates NPOV. To be honest, when i read this draft, i feel like i am reading a blog post or a newspaper. The author has also introduced some phrases in the draft that should be replaced or removed.



Current version

It is also affected with notability bomb

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

All of those terms don’t fit under the catergory of promotional. There’s significant evidence backing up each claim following the statements such as his college career, participation in the local community by setting up charitable organizations. As well as each of Javier Loyas family members attending an Ivy League school post education. Each of which was referenced.

I am willing to remove each statement if that’s what’s needed, as previously shown by removing all peacock and weasel terms to avoid any promotion of character/personality.

As for the nobility Bomb, your prior argument was an insignificant amount of sources. So I updated each category with high end-journalism citations to ensure it fit the standards of Wikipedia, I wanted the reader to understand there is more than one reference for each statement in the article.

I’m willing to put in the work to ensure this we can bring this article to the standards of Wikipedia. Please let me know what violations I need to fix to make this article worthy. Thank you very much! Mespar20 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Notability bomb means "load an article up with as many sources as possible without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic".

You have provided seven sources but none of them are independent, and hence it fails to satisfy general notability criteria if more identical sources are found. Consider providing independent secondary source(s) than 7 sources with trivial mentions to a small part of the article's section. Also, COI and paid editing is discouraged. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, when a BLP article includes fastest growing or widely recognized phrases, such claims are generally expected to be cited with independent sources like this  TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

New edits and resubmission
Hello. I would just like to disclose that I have been paid to redo this draft to make it better comply with Wikipedia standards, in the hopes of resubmission. WiktorLinus (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)