Talk:Paulina Rubio

Regular English Usage
I have changed the word "string" to "ribbon" as in [she], ie, Rubio was asked to cut the "string".Mark Preston 05:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What About Pau-Latina?

 * Keep - Sources added, why someone is deleting the new sources?. I also think the subject is notable in its field . User eddyvirto 09:30,4 april 2007 (UTC)

There is no section for the PAU-LATINA album. It talks about Border Girl and skips to Ananda. ShadowBoxer 07:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Gala
I added a paragraph in the "Ananda to present" section relating to Paulina's performance in Oslo, Norway at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. PopolVuh! 06:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

None of their first albums with EMI reach the million of copies. The information is totally false.

SALES
does any one know the actual sales for Paulina's 1st albums? i have read that La Chica Dorada has sold a little over a million in a magazine and i know for a fact the 24 Kilates has been certified gold in mexico at least.

Can someone please post she recently performed on jay leno show to sing "ni una sola palabra" becoming only the 2nd artist allowed to sing in spanish.

PAULINO ROBIO SOLD 10 MILLION COPIES??????OH GOD.....THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE...SHE HAS SOLD 13 MILLION.ARE YOU CRAZY?20?ALSO,PLEASE PUT THE SITES WHERE YOU FIND THE INFORMATION THAT YOU GIVE.20 MILLION IS NOT TRUE.HERE WE DONT WRITE WHAT WE LIKE BUT WHAT IS CORRECT,NOT DEPENDANT ON HOW MUCH WE LIKE A SINGER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.126.212 (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits without citations to record sales and other facts. ..
Will not be permitted. All items added must be in accordance with Verifiability. Ronbo76 08:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words will be looked at carefully
Generally, weasel terms are statements that are misleading because they lack the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background information against which these statements are made. Weasel terms are the equivalent of spin in the political sphere in British English. Saying that one artist is the best or a generalization like, "it has been decided" without citing a neutral POV veriable source will draw attention to your edits. Wikipedia is not a fansite where unsubstanitated rumors can be written. Ronbo76 17:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WW SALES
On December 6, 2006, Paulina Rubio performed on Jay Leno and before she appeared, Jay Leno said that she had sold over 16 million albums worldwide. Check out this link:


 * Paulina Rubio sells over 16 million albums


 * Youtube is not considered a reliable source, even though the artist may appear. Citations are just like a term paper: you write it; it is back up by a third party neutral reliable source. Otherwise, it will not be accepted here. Ronbo76 07:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * None of your references checked. The first opened to a Nobel Peace site, which could be seen as a bad faith edit. Once again, if you cite a fact, i.e., "Rubio sold xx albums." The link must read on that page, "Rubio sold xx albums." If the citation is not veriable as per above, it will be reverted.

The article is valid as the album sales are listed near the end of the article. There is a section about her in the article. You need to read the article carefully before making false reverts.

75.6.247.40 07:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You may wish to review Citing sources. That paragraph tells you how to properly cite a fact backed up by a reliable source. The problem with the citation you used is that the reference to her sales is a passing reference that invites a reasonable editor to ask what is the source. With an established fact like "Columbus sailed in 1492. . ." reliable third party sources are available to back the fact. With album sales about a current performer it is difficult to find a good source. Billboard might be that source but even it is subject to how record sales are reported, adjusted, etc. It is easier to find good sources for a performer whose numbers are not clicking like an odometer.


 * Wikipedia strives to preserve a reasonable amount of information about topics pertinent to an article. However, there is a caveat, and that involves what Wikipedia is not. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a blog or indiscriminate collection of information. There is another proposal about what it is not: Wikipedia is not a fansite. Wikipedia is about preserving information in a reasonable manner that the next reader does not have to worry about how good Wikipedia's information is.


 * Inre Paulina Rubio's article, several editors like me have seen this and companion articles descended upon fans who want to make an impact statement without doing their homework. They will make edits without providing sources and in some instances make malicious edits. That is why this article was semi-protected less than a month ago.


 * Wikipedia strives for a Neutral point of view meaning that articles should be well written and grounded on facts. The best example given to me recently by another editor about how articles should be written is "term paper is a good analogy. An overview article in a scientific journal would be another example."


 * I will admit that I am a fan of Paulina's but that is where I have to stop myself concerning editting her article. If I put fansite blog material into her article, I am doing her readers a disserve and more importantly myself. As an editor I have to ask myself, "what would a reader of an encyclopedia expect to read?" Encyclopedias are facts written with a neutral point of view. If a reader is looking for facts, then Wikipedia and encyclopedias are the place to come. If not, then I would gently suggest that other sources of information should be sought out.

You may wish to review those articles cited in this note which are policy. Ronbo76 13:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, before I revert, I do a voluntary due diligence review. I did a Yahoo search last night on the term, Paulina Rubio album sales. It did not yield a good reliable NPOV cite. It was interesting to see this Paulina Rubio URL on her official website. This is a messageboard there with a link back to this article and its author states,


 * "I used Paulina’s Wikipedia article as a reference for most of the album sales figures. It doesn’t list all of them, but it is a start. Here is a link to that article: (Wikipedia link not included.)"


 * Wikipedia is not the reference for her album sales. Ronbo76 15:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to all editors why this article might be receiving anonymous IP edits - her official website message board has a link back to this article
All editors may wish to review my post above this one. To make it easy for you, I wrote:


 * It was interesting to see this Paulina Rubio URL on her official website. This is a messageboard there with a link back to this article and its author states,


 * "I used Paulina’s Wikipedia article as a reference for most of the album sales figures. It doesn’t list all of them, but it is a start. Here is a link to that article: (Wikipedia link not included.)"

I will not pretend to be an expert on this matter but ask that editors consider this when seeing record sales posts.


 * I should add, that the artist is probably not responsible for the messages on her website message board. Ronbo76 17:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Elimination of album sales to improve this article
I will discuss with other editors the number one way to cut down on the number of vandal edits - the elimination of album sale numbers. Gold, silver and bronze sales are more easily tracked achievements. Ronbo76 04:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as silver and bronze when it comes to albums sales? Isn't that the way they award olympic athletes? Album awards are gold, platinum, and diamond.

In some countries, like the UK, in terms of albums it goes silver, gold and platinum

M.A.C. edition
Anyone wanna add on to her lipstick/lipglass edition to MAC? All info is on the site

Fair use rationale for Image:Paulinapaulina.jpg
Image:Paulinapaulina.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ananda.jpg
Image:Ananda.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gran City Pop
This section needs significant work: it's out of order, has a number of grammatical errors and there's too many 1-sentence paragraphs. IKrolm (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism from user
Every time I make an edition in this article, were Paulina Rubio is known as The Queen Of Latin Pop with at least 15 references all over the world in several languages, this user revert it, please I request from blocking this user to make any edit to this article, since this user doesn't offer any reason for revert these edits. He just simply erase it. Please help preventing this user from making any edit to this article.

This are the references where Paulina Rubio is named as the "Queen of Latin Pop":

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/selena-gomez-paulina-rubio-collaboration-2017

http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/art-books-music/news/a19621/selena-gomez-paulina-rubio-new-music/

http://perezhilton.com/2016-12-28-selena-gomez-paulina-rubino-new-music

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=_UeiAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT289&dq=Paulina+Rubio+Queen+Of+Latin+Pop&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Paulina%20Rubio%20Queen%20Of%20Latin%20Pop&f=false

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=EL__aCS77e0C&pg=PA263&dq=Paulina+Rubio+reina+del+pop&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Paulina%20Rubio%20reina%20del%20pop&f=false

http://www.idolator.com/7654159/selena-gomez-recorded-song-with-paulina-rubio

http://www.prosieben.de/stars/news/selena-gomez-nach-rehab-neues-duett-mit-superstar-051183

http://qn.quotidiano.net/2007/06/02/15638-rubio_alza_gonna.shtml

http://www.nrj.fr/artistes/selena-gomez/actus/selena-gomez-va-faire-son-retour-en-musique-avec-paulina-rubio-343659

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/latin/6671058/premios-tu-mundo-winners-nicky-jam-daddy-yankee

http://www.telemundo.com/shows/2015/09/17/paulina-rubio-daddy-yankee-reik-y-mas-se-unen-la-lista-de-cantantes-para-la?image=7162676

http://www.europafm.com/noticias/musica/nuevo-duo-paulina-rubio-selena-gomez-haran-colaboracion_201612295864fb100cf211d2a9fefb4a.html

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=EL__aCS77e0C&pg=PA263&dq=Paulina+Rubio+reina+del+pop&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Paulina%20Rubio%20reina%20del%20pop&f=false

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-y9JVaTny8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96qQjoSpfcc

And in my edition I mention Paulina Rubio is the top-selling mexican artist and always erase it:

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=iw4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=paulina+rubio+shakira+biggest+selling+singer&source=bl&ots=lsHh3t5M6G&sig=3lv0wPf03Y43i7ltRhOn3IGYeGc&hl=en&sa=X#v=onepage&q=paulina%20rubio%20shakira%20biggest%20selling%20singer&f=false


 * User has notified about this article in the Spanish Administrators' noticeboard and doesn't proceeds (is a different article). I will answer here:


 * He said that I just reverted him without any reason. It's ironic, because I removed some statements on December 12 with a edit summary ("Bias. PEACOCK context. Also, top-selling Mexican female maybe in Nielsen figures (and is not update information)"). But actually he reverted my edition without any reason or at least without making a edit summary since today.
 * However, I oppose about the version that he restored. Why?: some references like YouTube not meets the criteria of verifiability. It's a PEACOCK context also, because even artists like Thalía, Shakira or Gloria Estefan have been named with this honorific nickname several decade ago and by international press and more than Paulina Rubio.
 * The reference about "top-selling mexican artist" (in United States) is not accurate information now. Since 2008, Thalía has sold more than Paulina Rubio according to Nielsen. Even, I think that she has more certified units.

If you see, there is not vandalism. Contrary, you started reverting without any reason and I explained why this version needs to be delete. Regards, Chrishonduras  ( Diskussion ) 09:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you see this is a Thalia's fan reverting versions in Paulina Rubio's article? This clearly a vandalism case. What is it doing a Thalia fan editing Paulina Rubio's article in Wikipedia? Did you notice he uses the phrase "I think"? This is a valid argument to revert versions in Wikipedia? Because he thinks? Please you got to do something.


 * So can you please bring that reliable reference where Nielsen says Thalia has sold more albums than Paulina Rubio? Because this is not a real Nielsen reference, and this is outdated too, this is from 2008! This is not accurate information now. And besides that's not an article is just a forum where anyone can ask and answer a question. This is not accurate information in anyway. The same arguments that you use. In 2006 Emi Music gives Thalia an award for having sold 10 million albums throughout her career, wich means 10 millions albums in 16 years.  Two years later Thalia was fired in 2008 from the same record label Emi Music for low record sales from her album "Lunada" . Then in 2009 she signs with Sony Music where her husband Tommy Mottola was president, and she went from one day to another from 10 millions to 40 millions. How did it happens? 30 millions albums sold in one year?

So there's not any Billboard o Nielsen reliable reference saying Thalia has sold more albums than Paulina Rubio, because the one you mention is outdated. And is not accurate information.
 * Paulina Rubio is the only mexican female singer with 2 Gold "standard type certifications" according to RIAA Here is important to repeat these are "Gold Standard Type certifications" wich represents 500,000 record sales each one in USA, and Thalia only have "Latin Type Certifications" representing only 30,000 sales in USA each one...

Please stop reverting versions just because you are Thalia's fan and Paulina Rubio's hater, this are a clear example of vandalism. Regards, Carlomagno2013  ( Diskussion )


 * That is more incredible. I just arguing the point about Thalía (ref 2008) vs Rubio (ref 2005) in sales. Who has oldest news?. This is not reason to be a "Thalía fan" or "Paulina Rubio hater". Please Assume good faith. And yet, is realible, is from Billboard.com and they have a section when a reader asked about sales or something from this section. However, you see with a realible source that Rubio is not the best-selling female artist in United States or can you provide a update about this statement, please?.

Please stop making disruptive editions or you can be blocked. Thanks, Chrishonduras  ( Diskussion ) 16:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody said Paulina Rubio is the top-selling female artist in the United States, who said that? Even my reference doesn't even said that, you keep lying and lying and taking control of Paulina Rubios's article. Thanks for you threatens, so if you are not a Thalia's fan why are you doing edits in her article in Wikipedia? It is clear you have an special interest in Paulina Rubio's article, and we remember when you wrote in the description that Thalia is the Queen of Latin pop, not Paulina! And you blocked the article from editings right after doing that vandalism! Do you really think we don't have memory? I repeat you keep lying and lying. Carlomagno2013 ( Diskussion )


 * So, what's the point about your comments?. This is Paulina Rubio's article, not Thalía's article. You're creating disruptive editions here. And... "top-selling Mexican female pop singer in the market" in which market?, United States?, Worldwide?. Reference said: "according to Nielsen SoundScan, Paulina is -after Shakira- the top selling Latin femela pop artist in the market". Where operates Nielsen SoundScan? for Mexico, Europe or Worldwide? I think that is only for United States/Canada. Doesnt makes sense this statement in the lead or in any part. And at least, in the context that you wrote Queen of Latin Pop is PEACOCK. There is not mention why and I can gave you opposite and a major context for other artists with this nickname. Chrishonduras  ( Diskussion ) 08:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Paurubio-videoglobalcitizen.jpg

In the main topic should be golden girl not only queen of pop
She's best known and referred to as "the golden girl" not only as "the queen of latin pop" so it should be included too in the main topic since its one of the most famous characteristics of her. Moonlight Entm (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)