Talk:Lil Xan/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Lil Xan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Noteworthy?
Is this person sufficiently noteworthy? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Is Leanos Hispanic, Mexican-American, something else?
So, there's been some disagreement over how to describe Leanos' ancestry/ethnicity. The article currently describes him as being "of Hispanic descent", but not all editors have liked that wording (see, for example, this, this, and this). How should we resolve this disagreement? Let's review what the sources say. Leanos has described himself as Hispanic on at least two occasions.[1][2] He's also described himself as Mexican.[3] Third-party sources offer a slightly different description, with both Billboard and The New York Times describing him as being "of Mexican descent".[4][5] (The Billboard article actually goes on to describe Leanos as "Mexican-American", but I don't know if that is accurate given that, as another editor noted, Leanos wasn't born in Mexico.) Of course, not all of these descriptions are mutually exclusive. Someone of Mexican descent living in the US is typically considered Hispanic, for instance. But we're still left with the question: How should the article describe Leanos' ancestry/ethnicity? My inclination is to follow the third-party sources and describe Leanos as being of Mexican descent. Both Billboard and the Times are reliable and well-respected, so I think adopting their description is probably the best option. I will change the article accordingly within the next few days unless anyone has any objections.
Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lil Xan (2017-11-10). "LIL XAN EXPOSED". No Jumper (Interview). YouTube. Event occurs at minute 3:53. Retrieved 2017-11-29.
- ^ Lil Xan [@lilxanfuhyobih] (15 March 2017). "I love how people call me white trash when im full Hispanic haha" (Tweet). Retrieved 1 December 2017 – via Twitter.
- ^ Lil Xan [@lilxanfuhyobih] (12 August 2017). "i'm mexican" (Tweet). Retrieved 1 December 2017 – via Twitter.
- ^ Mark Elibert (5 December 2017). "10 Hottest MCs of Latin Descent in Hip-Hop Today". Billboard. Retrieved 20 December 2017.
- ^ Jon Caramanica (18 December 2017). "3 Rappers Peeking at Eminem’s Playbook". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 December 2017.
Changed name
He changed his name to Diego. Ronnyron242 (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've updated the article accordingly. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
To add to article
To add to article: more information about this artist's playing of the tuba. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC) He also come out as bisexual in 2015 but has since then retracted his statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.127.205 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page since it probably needs to have been here to begin with.
Lil Xan notability
I don't think this edit is warranted. Leanos has been profiled in XXL, Billboard, and The New Yorker, and has received mentions in The New York Times and a few other Billboard articles, among other sources. Is this not enough to establish his notability in your eyes? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- He has yet to release an album, while music is what he is notable for. This makes it worthy of review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- If multiple reliable sources consider Leanos notable enough to cover even though he hasn't released an album, his article warrants inclusion. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:GNG). Do you not consider the sources in the article significant coverage? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I see you toned it down a notch while I was typing, which I appreciate. With most of those sources, he is simply listed with a bunch of other people and there is one or two paragraphs about him. He is new, so this isn't unusual, but that isn't the same as WP:SIGCOV, another requirement when it comes to establishing notability. I'm not dragging it to WP:AFD, I'm saying some more substantial sourcing would be helpful. Establishing notability isn't about the quantity of sources, it is about the quality. For example, the New York Times article is a high quality source, but there is only a single paragraph mentioning him. That isn't significant coverage for the purpose of establishing notability, although it is fine for sourcing facts given in that one paragraph. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you regarding the NYT source. That's why I said he "received mention" in it, not that he was profiled in it. In the XXL and New Yorker sources, however, Leanos is a main focus of the article. (The title of the New Yorker article is "Lil Xan and the Year in Sad Rap".) This meets the "addresses the topic directly and in detail" standard of WP:SIGCOV in my eyes, but I can see where you're coming from as well. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I will look later, although I have checked several sources today (I'm at work, busy one minute, free the next). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I will look later, although I have checked several sources today (I'm at work, busy one minute, free the next). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you regarding the NYT source. That's why I said he "received mention" in it, not that he was profiled in it. In the XXL and New Yorker sources, however, Leanos is a main focus of the article. (The title of the New Yorker article is "Lil Xan and the Year in Sad Rap".) This meets the "addresses the topic directly and in detail" standard of WP:SIGCOV in my eyes, but I can see where you're coming from as well. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I see you toned it down a notch while I was typing, which I appreciate. With most of those sources, he is simply listed with a bunch of other people and there is one or two paragraphs about him. He is new, so this isn't unusual, but that isn't the same as WP:SIGCOV, another requirement when it comes to establishing notability. I'm not dragging it to WP:AFD, I'm saying some more substantial sourcing would be helpful. Establishing notability isn't about the quantity of sources, it is about the quality. For example, the New York Times article is a high quality source, but there is only a single paragraph mentioning him. That isn't significant coverage for the purpose of establishing notability, although it is fine for sourcing facts given in that one paragraph. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- If multiple reliable sources consider Leanos notable enough to cover even though he hasn't released an album, his article warrants inclusion. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:GNG). Do you not consider the sources in the article significant coverage? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
(←) I don't mean to hound you about this, but I really don't think this edit is warranted either. Having a table of singles is a useful resource for readers who want to see the scope and chronology of Leanos' output. This usefulness is independent of whether he has released an album or not. Do you have any objection to me restoring the material? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that you should talk about it in prose, not tables. You can't really justify a table when there isn't any album, there isn't a moderate list of hits. You only use tables when the number of entries are long enough that it is awkward to do in prose. That is pretty much a WP:MOS issue. If you want to put back some of the info as prose, I don't mind, but when talking about a future album, there isn't much to list. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree, but this issue is minor enough that I don't think it's worth getting into a protracted debate about. At any rate, thanks for engaging in discussion with me. I appreciate the promptness of your responses. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Lord Bolingbroke, I probably should have linked the guideline on it, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, which I think explains it better than I can, and why prose is preferred to tables in cases like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- You said earlier, "You only use tables when the number of entries are long enough that it is awkward to do in prose." The singles table you removed listed thirteen songs. Don't you think it would be awkward to list all of these songs in prose? Also, could you be more specific about what part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables you are thinking of? The paragraph on prose in the suitability subsection says, "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not." Do you really think this is an issue with the specific table you removed though? Does presenting a list of singles as a table rather than in prose really run the risk of stripping away necessary nuance or detail? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- It listed 13 songs that didn't chart with sourcing for the one that did. This is why you just list them in prose (with sources). The default is to use prose, and only to use tables when necessary. Using it to list a bunch of songs that didn't go anywhere is overkill. Listing them all isn't really needed (imo). Being an encyclopedia article, the idea is the summarize, not to exhaustively list everything. The singles that charted, of course we would list, as they add to the understanding of the artist. In an article on a specific album, you list every song because it is central to that album. Listing every song released in the main article is uncommon, and since "released" is a nebulous thing (Did RCA release to radio? Self-publish? iTunes?), should be accompanied with sources for each to be included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- So your problem isn't with the table per se, but rather with the indiscriminate inclusion of songs? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not anti-table, but in that article, that table doesn't really belong. Prose is the better way to list them, and only if you can source them. Once he publishes an album, then there would be a table in THAT article with the songs, because the list of songs are best organized when talking about a collection of songs (an album). If he had more than three charting singles that weren't on albums, then a table would make sense for this article. Album articles usually have tables. Artists articles sometimes do, but usually to list accomplishments, like hit songs, or awards. Often, those are still done in prose because prose is always the preferred medium, unless a table makes organization smarter in some way. But I wouldn't use a table just for stuff they've released that didn't really go anywhere. I would just add a paragraph "He has released several singles including xxx, yyy, zzz and aaa" with a reference. They weren't hits, they will never have their own articles, a table is overkill since it doesn't really *require* organization. I know a lot of people think tables "look pretty", but that't not really the criteria for using them. We are supposed to use tables only to organize data, not to make it look prettier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, and I know there are PLENTY of articles that use tables wrong, and I correct them when I see them. It is an honest mistake, but being an encyclopedia, we strive for consistency. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- The salient part of your argument, it seems to me, is that non-album singles should only be mentioned in articles if they are accompanied by a source (regardless of whether the songs are put in a table or described in prose). I agree with you on that point, because I think limiting articles to only sourced information is necessary to keep them from becoming repositories of superfluous trivia. The only song from the table you removed that has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 (as far as I'm aware) or received more than a tangential mention in sources is "Betrayed", and that song is already mentioned in the main body of the article. In light of this, I think you were justified in removing the table. Thanks for taking the time to explain the rationale behind your decision . Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I appreciate your patience and civility. The Manual of Style isn't always easy to understand, but it is a pretty good set of guidelines that make the articles look professional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- The salient part of your argument, it seems to me, is that non-album singles should only be mentioned in articles if they are accompanied by a source (regardless of whether the songs are put in a table or described in prose). I agree with you on that point, because I think limiting articles to only sourced information is necessary to keep them from becoming repositories of superfluous trivia. The only song from the table you removed that has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 (as far as I'm aware) or received more than a tangential mention in sources is "Betrayed", and that song is already mentioned in the main body of the article. In light of this, I think you were justified in removing the table. Thanks for taking the time to explain the rationale behind your decision . Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, and I know there are PLENTY of articles that use tables wrong, and I correct them when I see them. It is an honest mistake, but being an encyclopedia, we strive for consistency. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not anti-table, but in that article, that table doesn't really belong. Prose is the better way to list them, and only if you can source them. Once he publishes an album, then there would be a table in THAT article with the songs, because the list of songs are best organized when talking about a collection of songs (an album). If he had more than three charting singles that weren't on albums, then a table would make sense for this article. Album articles usually have tables. Artists articles sometimes do, but usually to list accomplishments, like hit songs, or awards. Often, those are still done in prose because prose is always the preferred medium, unless a table makes organization smarter in some way. But I wouldn't use a table just for stuff they've released that didn't really go anywhere. I would just add a paragraph "He has released several singles including xxx, yyy, zzz and aaa" with a reference. They weren't hits, they will never have their own articles, a table is overkill since it doesn't really *require* organization. I know a lot of people think tables "look pretty", but that't not really the criteria for using them. We are supposed to use tables only to organize data, not to make it look prettier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- So your problem isn't with the table per se, but rather with the indiscriminate inclusion of songs? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- It listed 13 songs that didn't chart with sourcing for the one that did. This is why you just list them in prose (with sources). The default is to use prose, and only to use tables when necessary. Using it to list a bunch of songs that didn't go anywhere is overkill. Listing them all isn't really needed (imo). Being an encyclopedia article, the idea is the summarize, not to exhaustively list everything. The singles that charted, of course we would list, as they add to the understanding of the artist. In an article on a specific album, you list every song because it is central to that album. Listing every song released in the main article is uncommon, and since "released" is a nebulous thing (Did RCA release to radio? Self-publish? iTunes?), should be accompanied with sources for each to be included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- You said earlier, "You only use tables when the number of entries are long enough that it is awkward to do in prose." The singles table you removed listed thirteen songs. Don't you think it would be awkward to list all of these songs in prose? Also, could you be more specific about what part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables you are thinking of? The paragraph on prose in the suitability subsection says, "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not." Do you really think this is an issue with the specific table you removed though? Does presenting a list of singles as a table rather than in prose really run the risk of stripping away necessary nuance or detail? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Lord Bolingbroke, I probably should have linked the guideline on it, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, which I think explains it better than I can, and why prose is preferred to tables in cases like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree, but this issue is minor enough that I don't think it's worth getting into a protracted debate about. At any rate, thanks for engaging in discussion with me. I appreciate the promptness of your responses. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- WolvesS, you are beginning to edit war here. You might want to catch up with WP:BRD. There are NO sources attributed to those entries, and I've explained above that WP:MOS dictates that we use prose rather than tables. It is literally impossible to claim that unsourced material establishes notability with a straight face. The issue isn't notability, the issue is 1) unsourced content and more importantly, 2) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, which tells us when and when not to use tables. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Seriously?
You can’t judge him , you have right to. 🤯 What’s the point in all this controversy. What do we get out of all this ? No right no wrong , there is so much I can say but I won’t. 😠 I’m just a fan , but read the stories first . Ask before assume , experiment your research and ask questions, quote data , review your sources. L.oyaltyx (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
But that’s for everyone , not to mention one , to mention all L.oyaltyx (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a 2 out of 10
The part where he is said to gave Tupac a 2 out of 10, it should be a 2 out of nine so can someone edit it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.20.100.44 (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Personal Life
Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018 ==
 | This edit request to Lil Xan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Leanos revealed that he is the child of former professional golfer Jon Daly. According to Leanos, father and son reconnected in 2018 and began collaborating on music together. They recorded the track "I'm Your Dad." [1]==
Covercity305 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 00:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ In a 4/09/18 interview with Sirius XM Watercolors Channel 66
No longer quitting music
Lil Xan has announced a new project [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoSoyElContador (talk • contribs) 01:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
References
Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018
| | This edit request to Lil Xan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
lil xan is not American he's Mexican. 2600:1702:F30:2B90:A883:594C:4ACD:4D56 (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
That picture
He looks like a nerd in the pic.... Can someone change that ...he has new face tats too Isaa dee (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Can we please get a new picture?
That picture looks awful, not to mention it's dated since he got new face tats. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Record Label change -- 10th of March 2019
Lil Xan is no longer signed to Columbia records and created his own company, Xanarchy Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helois3.g (talk • contribs) 10:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)