Talk:Sharon Aguilar

Age
The only independent 3rd party reliable source that states an age thus far, http://www.independent.com/news/2011/may/22/cee-lo-green-guitarist-sharon-aguilar-rocks-ucsb-e/ says she is 25. An edit today says she was born 5 years earlier: (Sharon will actually be turning 30. She is not that young.) This was by a Single-purpose account.

Until another independent published source says otherwise, or there's serious evidence the subject is misleading the news media, let's stay with the WP:RELIABLE source. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * She actually graduated at the School for Advanced Studies - South High School in Miami, FL in 2002. If she graduated at the age of 18 or possibly 19, that would make her 27 or 28.  Also a people search on her, indicates that she is 28.  I'm not sure that either of those sites meet Wiki guidelines as legitimate sources.  The Peoplesmart.com search shows her as Sharon I. Borrego, age 28, Cutler Bay FL, Miami FL, Father Richard Steven Borrego, Mother Delia I Borrego, Sister Kristen D Borrego.  There is also indication on several rumor sites from people claiming to have grown up with her, that she has a 5 or 6 year old daughter that she left behind in Florida when she went to California to pursue a musical career.

http://www.classmates.com/directory/public/memberprofile/list.htm?regId=7263604374

http://www.peoplesmart.com/psp.aspx?_act=registernames&schex=execute&searchType=PeopleByName&_tab=PeopleSmart&_sea=PeopleByNameNames&FirstName=Sharon&LastName=Borrego&State=FL&PageNumber=1&PageSize=50&formType=searchcollapsed&NumResults=6&pid=000241174652&pfn=Sharon&pln=Borrego&pc=Cutler Bay&ps=FL&search=name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.48.52.241 (talk) 2011-08-26 00:22:56 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above IP is registered to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and may be shared by multiple users. While this may be cause for concern, "[t]he threshold for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" — we don't have verifiable WP:SOURCES that interviewers from news media cited in the article were incorrect as to her age. Nor do we have any WP:RELIABLE source regarding a child, legitimate or otherwise, nor the name of a father. Please read Biographies of living persons: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid." Moreover, this would be prohibited by policy: No original research.


 * Confirming her year of birh via e-mail is WP:RELIABLE? Really?   "17:16, 30 June 2011 (diff | hist) m Sharon Aguilar ‎ (confirmed year of birth by email)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.130.250 (talk)

This entire article appears to be written by a fan, if not a friend of hers. The sources identified include her myspace account, myspace accounts for her bands, various sites where all information was from interviews with her (questionable reliability and NPOV to say the least), youtube links, her own taltopia profile. The reference for information was based strictly on an interview with her. Again, the source is questionable, and hardly could hold up to scrutiny as legitimate in terms of verifiability. Where is the line drawn when one is searching on websites between what is 'original research' and what is simply searching for sources that could be considered reliable? Seems that anyone searching sites for information could be accused of attempting 'original research' when they're seeking information that another individual doesn't want found.

I find it interesting that an IP is called out for its source, for simply posing some legitimate questions in Talk pages (I thought that is what talk pages where intended for anyway). Isn't that one of the oldest propoganda techniques? If you can't discredit issues, then attempt to discredit their source? This entire article and all of its references really should be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny by a third party with no personal interest or connection to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.121.104 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC) The multiple 3rd party interviews appear to be reliable and reputable publications. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IP editors 99.88.121.104, 134.186.130.250, and 153.48.52.241 all appear to be sockpuppets, all making nearly identical edits to Koi, and also removing warning notices on their Talk and other Talk pages.

Dating
How come there is no mention of her dating George Lopez? 153.48.52.241 (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC) --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (The above IP is registered to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and may be shared by multiple users.) How does this relate to her WP:NOTABLE musicianship? WP:NPF: "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability."

Again, it seems the same biased party is attempting to discredit the source rather than address the issue itself. The article itself states where she was raised and who her parents are; the same question could be asked 'How does this relate to her musicianship'. The simple fact of the matter is that any person, living or not, with a wikipedia article has personal information (relatives, relationships, etc.) which have no direct connection with their profession. Spouses, significant others, children, arrest records, charitable activities, and even pets are identified on many pages. Are you going to go through every article on every person and delete out the personal information on them?

Just to restate: This entire article appears to be written by a fan, if not a friend of hers. The sources identified include her myspace account, myspace accounts for her bands, various sites where all information was from interviews with her (questionable reliability and NPOV to say the least), youtube links, her own taltopia profile. Most references for information are based strictly on interviews with her. Again, the sources are questionable, and hardly could hold up to scrutiny as legitimate in terms of verifiability. It would not be considered appropriate for an individual to edit a page about them. Is it any more legitimate for a page to be written based strictly on references, where all of the information came from the individual that the page is about, without any third party verification on the information that was provided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.121.104 (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC) The multiple 3rd party interviews appear to be reliable and reputable publications. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IP editors 99.88.121.104, 134.186.130.250, and 153.48.52.241 all appear to be sockpuppets, all making nearly identical edits to Koi, and also removing warning notices on their Talk and other Talk pages.