Talk:Xyla Foxlin

Article floated
Needs photo. Upload here then write the file name here on this talk page, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

About photos: If you're considering donating an image to Wikimedia Commons, please understand how the system works. You are considered the copyright owner if you pressed the button on the camera and took the picture; so it's yours, you own it, you can donate it, and Wikimedia will accept it. If somebody else took the photo, even if it was your camera, then they're the copyright owner, and we'll need to get their permission via email, using a forwarded boilerplate email that I can arrange. If you took the image of yourself with your camera, using a timer, then you're the copyright owner and you can donate it. If your image is of other recognizable people, then it is advised to get their permission first (verbal permission is fine, written is better) before uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. Photos of buildings, landscapes, places is fine. Photos of the artwork of famous artists can be problematic unless they've passed into the public domain (for example, from the 19th century). If you take a photo of your own artwork, that is fine, you're the copyright owner of both the photo and the artwork, and we'll need to state this in the permissions section. We can't simply fish images off of the web and try to upload them to Wikimedia Commons. What Wikimedia does, I think, is have an automatic program which compares every new donated image with every image out there on the web -- if it finds a match, it assumes that the image on the web is copyrighted, and it will raise a red flag about the donation, which means in practice that the image will probably get kicked out of the database.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... subject seems notable as a subject of several independent articles from reliable sources. --Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Well she is a Youtuber with less than 200k subscribers. A few articles on some unknown websites and three sentences in the New-York Times doesn't change the fact that she is (sorry) not important. --Shivasfather (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You can take it to AfD if that's what you think. This isn't even close to a CSD candidate though. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Qwaiiplayer -- it isn't even close, and Shivasfather if you bring it to AfD, you'd be wasting everybody's time, including your own.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

about sections
I agree that sections are helpful for long articles, to help a reader navigate the page, but in this particular case, with the subject of the article having so many different interests, going in many directions, coming up with helpful sections might be difficult? Her life doesn't neatly divide up into periods, like Picasso's life (eg Blue Room period, etc). I wrote much of this article and if I could think of a way to do the sectioning, I'd have done it, but right now this rough chronological approach is perhaps the best that's possible?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Serious questions about notability
Please don't take this too personally, but this article has all the fittings of something I'd speedy delete as WP:G11, but considering the sources used, I had a bit more of a look at it. This article is really something that would be written by a big fan or someone trying to bump up her image, so it's definitely not neutral at all.

Below is a table I made examining the sources used. wizzito &#124; say hello!  03:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If a few of the sources meet the requirement for being significant coverage in reliable sources then that is good enough to confer notability. The presence of additional sources which are not so good in that respect doesn't make a case for deletion. They might be being used to verify specific facts, which is fine, or they might be superfluous, in which case we should remove them.
 * Here are my suggestions:
 * Break the article up into sections.
 * Remove the terrible doctored pictures. They are probably going to get deleted anyway.
 * Rewrite/reduce/remove the more gushing fan writing as appropriate and remove any sources too poor to provide either notability or verifiability.
 * Put the standard YouTuber template on.
 * See how it looks then. My guess is that we will have a shorter but valid article but, if not, then we can consider what to do next.
 * --DanielRigal (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, the more I looked at those awful images the more they annoyed me so I've just removed them, along with the big caption about the crown. If anybody wants to work a sentence or two about the crown into the article then they can but it should not be overblown. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * if you feel the subject is not notable, why not pose it for AfD? That way you can waste everybody's time since the subject is clearly notable. Just because you, in your esteemed "wisdom", find certain images "awful" or "annoying" does not give you the power to delete them willy nilly -- Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have rules about what stays and what doesn't. The YouTube video about the crown is amazing -- what beauty contest winner ever launches their crown into outer space? That's why Xyla is amazing -- it is a statement of the stupidity of beauty pageants and an expression of women's rights, which I admire.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you even read what I said? "My guess is that we will have a shorter but valid article". I'm trying to make the article look less like it needs to be deleted because it probably doesn't. As I say above, I'm not against mention of the crown so long as it is not overblown. A sentence or two in the body would be fine. Also, we must not attribute motivations to her if she has not expressed them, so we would need sources confirming her reasons.
 * I'm removing your pictures again, at least while their deletion is discussed here, on the grounds that they are garish, make Foxlin look bad and generally fail to give an accurate impression of how she really looks. If they survive the deletion discussion on the Commons then we can consider whether they are suitable for use in Wikipedia articles. I would argue very strongly that they are not. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're edit-warring. You should know the rules by now. And what are your qualifications as an art critic? Frankly I think the images make Foxlin look terrific and they are faithful to what she looks like. You, deleting good material, on the grounds that it makes the article less likely to be deleted, well that is vacuous reasoning. If you think there are "serious questions about notability", well you should pose it for AfD, but maybe by now you've figured out how you'll be wasting everybody's time, plus preventing 168 users each day from learning about a creative and important YouTuber.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to be very clear, I did not say that there were "serious questions about notability". Somebody else gave the section that title, as is their right. I do not think that the article should be deleted and I want to help it to be improved. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok you're right, another user wrote about the "serious questions". But you did delete the images plus the caption which I take issue with, and you did edit war by removing the images twice. Overall I think there are much bigger issues here which merit discussion within the community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * One other thing I'd like to share, that maybe you know or don't know, which is a helpful quickie-tool to evaluate notability. Simply: pageviews. As everybody knows, pageviews are not an official rationale for establishing notability, but in practice, over time, what I've found is that subjects with substantial pageviews are almost always notable, and even if challenged, usually survive AfD. For instance, check out Xyla Foxlin's pageviews -- currently (as of today Nov 1st 2021) they're 171 per day, on average, over a 90-day interval. That's huge attention. Think of every pageview as a reader interested in Foxlin, as if they're 'votes' for keeping her in the encyclopedia; if we put her article up for deletion, it's like a pool of people who might possibly object to that deletion. That way, in future, a quick check of pageviews can give us Wikipedians a usually-correct-guess about notability, and you might avoid the heartfelt yet labor-intensive work of who did this analysis, and focus your time more constructively on improving the encyclopedia. An article with only a handful of pageviews per day, especially a BLP, should be investigated further, of course.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , I don't think is trying to edit war. I think you're fairly obsessed with this woman to the point that her article isn't neutral at all and to the point where it could definitely use a more neutral rewrite. I agree with all of the points Daniel made. And it not having an image for some time isn't that big of a deal, perhaps she is notable but a lot of the sources aren't really WP:SIGCOV. wizzito  &#124; say hello!  16:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , nope, I'm not obsessed with this particular person; I've written hundreds of biography articles as well as articles on a huge range of subjects during the past 14+ years and simply I like articles that I've created to be beautiful to look at. Problem is, Wikimedia Commons is a bureaucratic nightmare of permissions and copyright rules and fusswork. But it exists within the framework of convoluted and overly complex copyright rules, so it is unlikely to change. About this particular article, the subject is clearly notable, with plenty of reliable sources to back that up; and it's perfectly fine to add additional sources to flesh out the whole story. And, in a biography article, it doesn't make much sense to think in terms of 'positive' and 'negative' and 'neutral' -- if you even tried to find negative things written about her, I doubt you'd find anything at all, so you, trying to "balance" the article with pluses and minuses, well you'd simply be introducing your own distortions. Or, if you tried to cut or diminish or somehow downplay her accomplishments, by chopping text, you'd just be engaged in some kind of well-meaning editing which is more like borderline vandalism. For articles in which neutrality is important, think politicians, or religious subjects, or philosophy, or history -- for subjects like these, of course, neutrality is important. Pretty much every article on every college and university is, to my reckoning, highly biased in favor of the college or university; what happens is that its alumni all think it's the greatest.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)