Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by BlueMoonset talk 17:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The tag on the article about advertising has not been addressed in over a month; closing as unsuccessful per review

Created by InvadingInvader (talk). Self-nominated at 15:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sommer Ray; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply

InvadingInvader, I've been wanting to promote this one, but I'm not sure if it's quite right. The hook is phrased in a way that implies it's much more certain she'd make that much than the article/source supports. Something like "refused to join OnlyFans despite estimates she'd make x money" seems less likely to cause an ERRORS argument? Vaticidalprophet 10:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd be willing to accept an alternative hook with that pattern. Feel free to propose one! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
So, in the abstract, this could be restructured as...
ALT0a: ... that Sommer Ray refused to join OnlyFans despite estimates she could make as much as $40 million?
Having said that -- looking at the source, I don't think it's good enough for the statement (In that time, with COVID — someone was saying I could have made $40 million or something like that). It might be good for this to workshop a new hook at DYKN. Paging Theleekycauldron for doing the annoying retransclusion bit potential new hooks? Vaticidalprophet 18:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I personally think it could work. If you really want another hook, here's a similar potential version:
Alt 0b' – DYK that influencer Sommer Ray has not joined OnlyFans despite estimates that she could have made $40 million USD from the platform?
InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
  The trouble is with the statement itself. I've retranscluded this at DYK, because it needs rehooking from a different part of the article. This was the source used for the statement:

During an April 13 podcast with YouTuber George Janko, Ray revealed that she’d actually been advised to make an OnlyFans account to jump on the gravy train… but she ended up turning it down. "At that time it was like, every single person in my life was coming to me and telling me, "If you don’t start an OnlyFans, you’re stupid,'" she explained. "The money I could make would be insane. In that time, with COVID — someone was saying I could have made $40 million or something like that."

This isn't good enough to support a hook stating it uncritically. It's not a serious "estimate" -- it's a grapevine retelling of "someone" in a Youtube video, repeated in a questionable source.
Even more problematic now is that the article has been cut in half between the reviewed revision and the present one, and amongst other things 1. no longer includes that source and 2. has a cleanup tag. This needs looking at again. Vaticidalprophet 07:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  From the article, not having vetted the claims:

  • ALT1: ... that Instagram influencer Sommer Ray has turned down multiple offers of free plastic surgery?

Also, as I expressed at Template:Did you know nominations/Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele), I feel that this nomination has not received full review and requires a new one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  As far as ALT1 goes, I'm not entirely comfortable talking about medical procedures in a WP:BLP with no better source than Cosmo, even though WP:RSN isn't as down on Cosmo as I am. But the real problem is that the article is tagged for {{Advert}} and {{BLP sources}} and the version history shows a fair bit of edit warring, so I'm going to fail this on WP:DYKCOMPLETE and WP:DYKTAG. RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Feedback from New Page Review process


I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello! I trust you're enjoying a wonderful day. I wanted to express my gratitude for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia through your article. I'm pleased to let you know that your article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I've officially marked it as reviewed. Wishing you and your loved ones a fantastic day ahead!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SunDawn: No, it most certainly did not meet with the basics of BLP. More than half the references were poor, and most of them so very poor that they should have been removed on sight as I did. --Hipal (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Hipal Could you explain to me the problem with Dextero as a reference? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Let's ignore that for the moment. Do you agree with my removal of all the others?
As for dextero, at very best it shouldn't be left in until there's clear consensus to do so. Removal on sight is warranted given the discussions:
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dexerto --Hipal (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not exactly. I do think that a Forbes interview should be included as an attributed opinion, since though it is a ForbesCon, the content is actually an interview. I would say the same of TheRichest, including it as an attributed opinion, but I'm less opposed to its complete removal due to a bit more of a tabloid nature as came from the richest. It is probably best that a journal does a study on average profits on this subject anyway.
As a note, at least as I see it, we're probably gonna have to agree to disagree on this, but if you precede an argument with "let's ignore that for a sec", you're implying to me that it's a very weak argument or something you're going to lose. To respond to the RFC you cited for Dextero, I evaluated consensus as even between 2 and 3, sometimes but not generally unreliable. Probably best to open up another discussion if you insist. I don't know why you included the Cr1TiKaL discussion as it seems not to mention Dextero and I am familiar with BLP removal on sight.
I don't see an issue with Distractify simply saying that Sommer was in the Clout Gang, and I would like a further explanation from you on your removal of Asian Blurb. I could see your thought process as to distractify for the rest though and for much more advanced claims, and writing articles using only Distractify as a source would be an area we both agree. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please WP:FOC. Thank you.
BLP requires consensus for inclusion, and places the onus on those arguing for inclusion.
Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion.
This article should be rewritten from whatever WP:BIO sources we can find. Currently, it's not clear what those sources might be.
There are many more problems with the current article as is that won't be resolved with poor and promotional references such as the ones removed. --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you believe that the article should be rewritten entirely, consider rewriting it yourself. I would be happy to help in any way I can in a rewrite. I think that the simpler claims sourced by Dextero don't constitute as an egregious violation. You have not explained to me how Asian Blurb is unreliable either, nor have you with the Forbes interview (which I have attempted to write in a manner which complies with WP:PRIMARY and WP:INTERVIEW, though I welcome corrections).
Also, I do not believe that you are WP:Assuming good faith by alluding that I am writing to promote Ray; per your previous remarks, please WP:FOC. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
As previously requested, please provide to me a detailed explanation as to why you think that Asian Blurb is unreliable. Additionally, explain to me as to why you think that the removal of an interview is warranted. I don't see an issue with how I handled the Forbes interview. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, WP:ABOUTSELF would likely support the inclusion of the Forbes interview, and to a lesser extent all the stuff you removed. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
BLP requires consensus for inclusion, and places the onus on those arguing for inclusion.
I don't see how we'd be avoiding ABOUTSELF#1, 2, and 5.
There are many more problems with the current article as is that won't be resolved with poor and promotional references such as the ones removed. --Hipal (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
What problems? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
The content at least from early life as previously cited in the Forbes interview is material I wouldn't see as an exceptional claim, nor one about third parties, nor as making up the bulk of the article. That refutes points 1, 2, and 5 of ABOUTSELF. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It would be best to work from edit requests, or something similar, showing clearly what changes are being requested and the references supporting them.

ABOUTSELF#1 states, the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;. It's the self-serving part that is most common in situations like this. --Hipal (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

If it's an interview and we use attributed opinions, I don't see a problem with it. I'm fully aware that WP:INTERVIEW is pretty contentious, but attributed opinions to the subject would be a good course of action to avoid any implying of objective facts.
With regard to Dextero, a request for closure just got submitted on CR; best to wait for that conclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
If I may ask, would you want to rewrite the article yourself as well? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I did a quick search for potential references and didn't find anything that clearly meets BLP quality standards. I found it difficult to cut through all the public relations campaigning that she does. --Hipal (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
How does a first person interview with a subject not meet BLP standards with attributed opinions? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's PROMO and an unreliable source. The lede of BLP includes, Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. --Hipal (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
WP:INTERVIEW, specifically If the material is secondary, and if it is published in a reliable publication, then it can sometimes be used to cite facts about third parties, and to cite opinions. However, care must be taken to ensure that normal editorial standards have been applied to the material (also, note WP:BLPSPS does not usually allow such sources to be used for claims about other living people). Depending on the publication, such material may not undergo the same level of fact-checking as other types of articles. For example, the introduction to an interview may rely entirely on facts provided by the interviewee. In general, the longer and more detailed the material, and the more reliable the publication, the more likely secondary-source material in an interview is to have undergone proper fact-checking. If you'd like to take FORBESCON interviews to RS/N, it may be necessary. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Additionally, interviews aren't third-party claims about a subject: they come straight from the horse's mouth. When used with care, these can be incredible sources to add. I believe that the interview is a good source for claims made by the subject herself about her life; this can be further disclaimed with attributed opinions. What's the problem with attributed opinions? And if you're going to say it's PROMO again, please explain better. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

What the actual heck was this revert?


@Hipal I would strongly disagree with your reversion. I think that calling a study from UVA and Liberty University a "poor source" is frankly bullcrap. If you want to revert, consider a WP:Partial revert only. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, take a look at the source you are reverting before just say "poor". which based on a lack of advertisements and its reliance on premium subscriptions, as well as the content generally being business reports on beauty brands, should be a reliable source. I would request that you constructively debate as opposed to deferring me to Requested Edits. Please WP:FOC and attempt to come to an agreement with me on how we can improve the article rather than police and WP:CRYBLP. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict)
As for this large edit:
In general, large edits shouldn't span multiple sections because they are hard to review.
Beautyindependent.com's business appears to be the development and promotion of the beauty industry. PROMO and NOTNEWS applies. The specific article is just a warmed over press release.
I'm not sure if the dissertation should be used per WP:DISSERTATION. I'm not sure what encyclopedic value there is in those stats.
The UofV conference paper is probably not usable, and it's use doesn't appear encyclopedic or due.
I can't find an accessible copy of the Family Court Review ref. Can you please quote what it says specifically about Ray? --Hipal (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
1. Explain to me how the UofV paper is not encyclopedic. You might have a case for WP:DUE, but it could but cut down rather than just axed completely, as is often done with citable information but not duly written. Solving a dandruff by decapitation is one that creates more problems. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
A student authored conference paper. --Hipal (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
If it was published after academic review what's the harm? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
The harm is violating all the policies previously brought up: BLP, NOT, POV, RS. --Hipal (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please elaborate on how it violates all of the policies you reference. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but the ONUS is on you, as already mentioned. --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
ONUS is on you for claiming that they violate it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
2. BeautyIndependent reports on current trends within the industry, and would not be WP:PROMO unless a citation was misused by an editor. I didn't even copy paste the entire BeautyIndependent article in; I just wrote, in objective and unbiased style, free of puffery[1], that products were distributed at four large stores. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply


Who cares other than people within the industry? Why does it deserve mention in an encyclopedia article about Ray? To resolve this, a better ref is needed. The reduced weight to it certainly helps. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I disagree vehemently. "Who cares" is more than a bad argument which I interpret to be on borderline censorship. There are tons of examples of industry specific or field specific information on Wikipedia, too many to mention. If something can be verifiably included, in weight with WP:DUE, it should be included. It doesn't detriment the article, and it provides supplementary information that all can take advantage of. "Who cares" is almost insulting. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
NOT and POV say otherwise. I feel that I keep bringing this up and it's being ignored. "Who cares?" is a basic question for determining if something is encyclopedic and due. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
WP:WHOCARES would say otherwise, and though targeted towards deletion discussions, I would apply it here. If you keep bringing it up and no satisfactory response comes from the community, it probably means that people don't agree. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid that doesn't apply in the least. I'm talking about basic content policies: NOT and POV, backed by BLP. Please don't ignore them. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please explain how specifically the content you object to violates the policies and guidelines you cite, and quote text in the policies and guidelines to better understand how it violates it. Previous responses have not been helpful in stating how policies are violated. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
3. The value in the stats provided from Liberty University , though ones which can be treated as Primary, can be solved with attributed opinions. You could have rewritten that. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why are those stats worth mentioning? If they came directly from an attributed source within the dissertation, we might want to consider attributing them directly as well. At least that will give us a chance at better context such as the timeframe for the data. Hipal (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Stats can supplement an article's prose to establish facts which can benefit the industry as a whole. We need to be writing for our readers first, and our readers could be anybody. Though Liberty seems to be the most reliable source for these statistics without extracting them straight from the influencer herself, if you can find something else which could supplement this, you're more than welcome to add it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
If that's the best argument that can be made, then leave it out. Please strike out the last sentence as it reflects badly on you. --Hipal (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Explain to me how invoking WP:READER is a bad argument. WP:NOTSTATS would also support inclusion; Excessive listings of unexplained statistics is not what I added at all. If stats can be explained and trimmed into a prose, they are a more than vital addition. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Speaking of which, as reflected WP:WHOCARES, I think I have made a valid argument in favor of inclusion. If you're saying information is not useful here, I would appreciate a much more in depth explanation as to why it's useless for our purposes (see WP:WHOCARES). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid I don't see how READER applies to BLP, NOT, and POV situations, nor WHOCARES. The onus is on those seeking inclusion... --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've made an argument for the inclusion of the material for the purpose of enhancing the context of the article, but I would be willing to elaborate. WP:NOTSTATS, a part of WP:NOT, would support inclusion as already stated. Statistics can be used to enhance an article's content, and can be written in prose if a table is not acceptable or best suited (which I wrote it originally in prose). If you are concerned about BLP, this can be solved by attributed opinions and writing the stats in a manner akin to "A study from liberty university estimates that Ray makes XXX per post".
If you're going to refute this, please state how it violates a policy or guideline. We can't have a productive conversation by just saying it violates a policy or guideline and not providing how it violates such policy or guideline. Specifically, I find the POV accusation to be frankly absurd without further context. In what manner does including stats from a research study violate NPOV?!
As for the reliability of Liberty University, the institution is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. The paper was verified by Dr. Mary Myer from Liberty University and sourced directly from the Liberty University commons; the original link is at https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5909&context=doctoral. Consterdine states that Hype Auditors, received favorably by ProductHunt and GetApp, was sourced by the paper for studies on follower counts, which was cross-referenced with Hootsuite, itself reviewed favorably by PCMag and The Motley Fool. I would say that based on the accreditation of the institution, the cross referencing, and the approval from a university committee, this is a reliable source. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
4. This link (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/fcre.12729) to the FCR is accessed using an American university's library database access. As explained in WP:PUBLISH, material which can be found in a library is accessible, and its lack of access for those not located at a university does not affect its reputability. If you're in the United States, traveling to a university and connecting to their Wi-Fi should be able to grant you access. While I won't say which university I am at for privacy reasons, during a personal trip to Northern California, I did successfully try links similar to this previously when connecting to Wi-Fi at the University of San Francisco and UC Berkeley. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
The FCR report mentions how Ray, along with FaZe Jarvis, FaZe Kay, Joel Morris of UK based YouTube academy Xcademy FaZe Nikan, and RiceGum promoted Save the Kids token. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. That's it directly about Ray? What context is it mentioned? --Hipal (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
The context mentioned is Ray's role in promoting Save The Kids token. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Recent cleanup


Regarding this cleanup by @Strawberries1:: I agree that edit summaries should have been used, but it looks like a good step toward resolving the problems with this article. I especially like the lede being trimmed back to something more focused on her notability. - Hipal (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

While I don't doubt the good faith, there should be a much more substantial lead which is much more than a sentence. If you're going to remove the entire lead save one sentence, put something the same size or larger in/ The article has essentially been turned into a skeleton already, and these removals are starting to go a bit too far. Lastly, please do not revert solely due to no consensus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
See WP:BIO and WP:LEDE. BLP requires the removal of contentious content, and places the onus on those wishing to restore it.
I'm unclear what BIO references we actually have, and what notability Ray has. Edit-warring will not solve the problems, but will result in a block or ban. WP:AE applies. --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Consider starting an AFD nomination if you believe that Ray does not meet the GNG or our other notability guidelines. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you believe it should go to AfD, take it there. No one else has mentioned that. --Hipal (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
My suggestion of AFD comes in response to your questioning of notability. The sources used in the article already provide enough SIGCOV to meet our guidelines, though you're free to disagree. If you do, consider taking it to AFD. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is disruptive, and reflects poorly on you. Please be more careful. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC) (linked WP:DE --Hipal (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC))Reply
Please WP:FOC. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
ArbEnf applies, and user behavior is a part of what is covered. Disrupting an article talk page, especially to avoid following policies, usually results in a block or ban. --Hipal (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

What WP:BIO references do we have?


In preparation for a rewrite, what WP:BIO references do we have? --Hipal (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

If there's no BIO reference supporting it, we need to be very careful what is added into the lede. Please identify which sources support this in the lede. --Hipal (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Referring to this version: Of the first five: Obviously not YouTube (1). IntheKnow (2) is a puff piece. Cosmo (3) is a profile focusing on her workouts. LifeandStyle (4) is another puff piece. TheAtlantic (5) mentions her once, in passing, in the list of Clout Gang members. --Hipal (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Atlantic ref has been removed: Tiffany, Kaitlyn (2019-12-23). "Why Kids Online Are Chasing 'Clout'". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-08-03. --Hipal (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose removal. Ray's context in the larger movement is sufficiently supported and would comply with due weight. If you disagree, please provide a more thorough argument. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Referring to this version, the next three: Obviously not Podcasts.apple.com (5), Insider (Leskin, 2019) (6) gives a one-sentence profile in a list from this research, The Hollywood Reporter (7) is a warmed-over press release announcing the podcast, UniPd.it (8) is a Italian-language thesis that mentions statistics for Ray. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Referring to the same version as above: Mysuncoast.com (9) is a press release. Insider ( Asarch, 2021) (10) mentions Ray once, in passing. Esports News UK (11) mentions Ray once, in passing. It's unclear that Esports News UK is reliable for such information.

After looking at them all, there are no BIO references, and some that should be removed. --Hipal (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please explain to me why you think Esports News UK is unreliable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the Podcasts.apple.com and Esports News UK refs. It might be best to stub the article until some BIO refs are found. --Hipal (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. WP:BLPPRIMARY enables the usage of primary sources to augment the secondary source. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Would further oppose this since it essentially sabotages an article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
sabotages? Following policy is just the opposite.
Without BIO references, we have little choice. --Hipal (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I believe these removals are enforcing policy to the point where it undermines the spirit of Wikipedia. If anything, I'm concerned you are being too firm. Given the nature of internet personalities, they are very rarely covered in sources (the core of my argument on why NYT mentions of a personality are so significant) traditionally used.
Remember that Wikipedia has no firm rules. (WP:5P5) My ultimate concern is that you're using BLP to remove non-libelous material, precisely what the 3RR exemption on BLP material warns against. Better references are a goal we both agree upon, but I do believe that given the nature of Ray, this may be one where Dexerto and other Additional Considerations sources should be permitted. RSP does state that Dexerto is rarely suitable for BLPs; this is a case where it does seem that it is, given that we cross-reference and augment its secondary coverage with another source, either primary or more reliable secondary, to ensure that we get the article right, the entire goal of the BLP policy. How to construe rarely ultimately depends on the content in question, but a blanket prohibition is something that we can't automatically jump to without a thorough discussion.
Why would you oppose the usage of Dexerto pages and FORBESCON interviews if primary sources stated, written and/or published directly by the subject, verify the statements said? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Other than STUBbing, AfD has been brought up as an option. I'm against it, and am unlikely to vote for or against deletion with the refs we currently have.

We need better references, but I've been unable to find them. I am observing that the better the source, the less they say about her. I'm going to dig through other references that we've discussed in case some might be useful. --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Consider taking a look at sources not mentioned previously which are permitted WP:BLPSPS. These can be used for non-extraordinary claims or basic information; the early life section would especially benefit from pieces like this. Sommer's own YouTube channel would be a great place to start; maybe a Q&A video she might have made? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Better references are a goal we both agree upon. Since we agree, I've restored the relevant tag asking for better sources. --Hipal (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Moving the article back to draft space has been proposed. I think it a very good idea. --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

RFC on whether the article is in violation of WP:PROMO

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus in this discussion is that both sections under discussion should not be included as they are here. This is not intended to preëmpt further discussions about this information, should new sources be brought up. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Does the inclusion of the following sets content in the article violate WP:PROMO and other content policies?

Set A: Information on Ray's relationship with Machine Gun Kelly
Ray formerly had a three-month long relationship with rapper Machine Gun Kelly prior to his engagement with actress Megan Fox.[1][2][3]


  1. ^ Ushe, Naledi (2021-03-25). "Model Sommer Ray Accuses Machine Gun Kelly of 'Cheating' on Her with Megan Fox Before They Broke Up". Peoplemag. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
  2. ^ Bonner, Mehra (2021-03-26). "Machine Gun Kelly's Ex Sommer Ray Just Accused Him of Cheating With Megan Fox". Cosmopolitan. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
  3. ^ Soloski, Alexis (2020-07-03). "Don't Call Him Machine Gun Kelly". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-09-28.
Set B: Information on Ray's entrepreneurial endeavors
Sommer additionally founded Imaraïs in 2017 alongside attorney Felicia Hershenhorn and Nutrabolics cofounder Aaron Hester, a line of vegan health gummies which contain chemicals that enhance skin appearance.[1] The ingestibles partnered with four North American retailers distribute Ray's product.[2] Later, Ray launched a mobile app, Evolve fitness, which she debuted on May 3, 2018.[3] Her endeavors also led to the creation of a line of subscription boxes, titled "Sommethings", which she curates.[4]


  1. ^ Tietjen, Alexa (June 4, 2021). "EXCLUSIVE: Influencer Sommer Ray Fronts Ingestible Beauty Line". Women's Wear Daily.
  2. ^ McCormack, Claire (2022-02-25). "Influencer Sommer Ray's Imaraïs Beauty Enters J.C. Penney As The First Ingestible Brand In Its New Beauty Assortment". Beauty Independent. Retrieved 2023-09-27.
  3. ^ LaCroix, Emy (2018-05-05). "Sommer Ray Dishes About Her Fitness App, Insecurity, and Childhood!". Life & Style. Retrieved 2023-08-10.
  4. ^ Pellot, Emerald (2021-03-25). "Who is Sommer Ray? The fitness model is blowing up on social media". In the Know. Retrieved 2023-08-03.

InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Include both. I think that the removal of both of these content sets is not warranted at all. The "violations" of BLP are nonexistent and overexaggerated. The core of BLP is to require that we get the article right; the material, based on the sourcing provided, was "gotten right". And neutrally worded to the greatest possible extent I could put forward as well. Both also would warrant inclusion in some form as they would follow WP:DUE given the amount of coverage from reliable sources that is mentioned. Given the general rarity of especially The New York Times among other sources to comment on internet culture and celebrities, their notation of it alone should warrant at least serious consideration of inclusion, if not automatic inclusion. To quote from the penultimate paragraph of DUE, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, and the relationship has been adequately covered by reliable sources. BLP, while I do understand why it exists, seems to have been taken too far and removed reliably sourced content based on the belief that the content violates PROMO. Stating that the relationship existed, even with only a single sentence, and of course with multiple instances of provided reliable sourcing, is not libelous, nor does it seek to inherently promote the subject. To claim that this article is written as an advert is borderline assuming bad faith. Further stating that Ray started a business and sourcing it with reliable references independent of the subject, and of course to write it in a neutral point of view as required by WP:5P2 does not violate WP:PROMO. It would only violate PROMO if we told our audience that they should buy it. We're not doing that. We're just stating that she started some businesses in connection with the content that she was posting. Is it a violation of WP:PROMO to state that the iPhone 7 was released with a lightning to headphone jack adapter? Is it a violation of WP:PROMO to publish information which states neutrally that JM Smucker just announced it would buy Hostess and Twinkies? We still include these pieces of information, even though one could make the claim that "including such information would incentivize trading on Hostess or Smucker stock", or that "saying the iPhone 7 comes with a headphone adapter incentivizes people to buy iPhone 7"; we include these potentially promotional statements because the neutral coverage on both of these instances outweighs the potential to promote. These types of claims seem to be the objection to including Ray's business endeavors. It's almost as if WP:CRYPROMO has become a thing, and that the preferred solution to getting the dandruff that is a few small errors off an article is decapitation of content acceptable and in line with our policies. I see that the only possible defenses for removal would ultimately boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Both fail multiple policies. The references are poor and promotional, failing BLP's reference requirements, with the exception of NYTimes which has only the briefest of mentions (UNDUE). Unless I'm missing something, Set B fails verification. Can someone please check before we move on to more complicated policies? --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • I can't find support for Sommer additionally founded Imaraïs in 2017: the source says that Henneshorn and Hefter began working on Imarais nearly a year ago (i.e. in 2020) and that Henneshorn approached Sommer to be involved; I don't think either "Sommer founded Imarais" or "Imrais was founded in 2017" are supported by that source. Nor do I see contain chemicals that enhance skin appearance in the cited source; the closest is meant to promote skin-barrier function which doesn't mention appearance and doesn't even claim that the product is effective. four North American retailers distribute Ray's product is sort of supported in that the linked article does name four North American retailers which distribute Imarais, but the source doesn't support the implied claim that there are only four north American retailers. The claim about the fitness app is supported; I can't access the source about the subscription boxes. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Set A leave out - in the world of "celebrities", a three month relationship is non-notable and is just gossip in the news at the time it occurred, a three month relationship has no historical significance.
Set B include conditionally - with condensed to just the basic facts. Sommer co-founded Imaraïs Beauty, a line of vegan health gummies, and in 2018, launched a fitness app, Evolve Fitness[1][2] The second sentence about four retailers leave out as it is outdated, since they are sold everywhere now in the US and UK, including Wal-Mart. And leave out "Sommerthings" as it is non-notable. It's not unusual to see entrepreneurial endeavors in BLPs, as long as they are reliably sourced. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC) ⋆。°✩🎃✩°。⋆Reply
  • Exclude on the basis of these sources. While a three-month relationship may conceivably be sufficiently important to include in a biography, the sourcing here is two questionable/gossipy sources and one which is not primarily about the subject. The threshhold for including this sort of personal information in a BLP should be high and this is not meeting it. The sources for the business ventures all look like promotional fluff to me: at minimum, the content should be trimmed back along the lines suggested by Isaidnoway, but the fitness app stuff is all sourced to an interview that Ray did to promote the app, the stuff about Imarais looks pretty press release-ish to me, and I am unconvinced that any of it should be included unless better sourcing is available. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Exclude Set A Set A fails WP:NOTNEWS and is basically wp:undue wp:gossip; there's nothing notable about a three-month long relationship. Conditionally include Set B Condense Set B to the basic facts per Isaidnoway or Exclude Set B entirely per Caeciliusinhorto-public's analysis of the sources here [1]. Some1 (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply



I have not had the opportunity to take a real close look so I am some comments. First, While an RFC is a form of dispute resolution those choosing this path should read WP:RFC#BEFORE. RFC's have been increasingly used as a first line for mundane article disputes when it should be used when other forms have failed. Since I an now here:
All involved should be careful of promotional material and sources but also those which are considered soapbox. There is a Cosmopolitan source to support the "Early life" section. This appears to be watered down. The article mentions "Although Ray has been accused of fake features, she insists the butt you see in her photos is 100 percent real — no editing required." If there are sources for supposedly fake photos that information might be includable somewhere. At present the section is more about what the subject says.
"Promo" sources would include things like "pantless-shower", that does appear to have been popular on social media but the source includes, "You can get the same shower head Sommer uses for $49.99..." that is clearly promotional.
That she co-hosted a Studio 71-produced podcast, apparently acceptable for inclusion, but could do without the Apple podcast, a primary source, that certainly appears to be promotional toward Apple.
  • At just a glance, and in my opinion, it seems "Information on Ray's entrepreneurial endeavors" should be admissible with reliable sources, especially if the Studio 71-produced podcast content is allowed.
  • "The "Information on Ray's relationship with Machine Gun Kelly" is more like soapbox material. She apparently had a fling with TikToker Tayler Holder (20.6 million followers), who apparently cheated on her with Charly Jordan (8.1m TikTok followers), and has his own life drama event amid accusations of wrongdoing. If Wikipedia was a social media site, not an encyclopedia, this stuff might be relevant. It would be hard to accept one as admissible content and the other not, so best to leave it out.
I thought using a "Controversy" or "Controversies" section was deprecated. I don't remember where the link is at but also saw mention at Comments from Checkingfax, "Dedicated Controversy sections are deprecated. We are now instructed to weave the controversy throughout the prose of the article (where it is germane to the prose)."
This does not need to be a protected or battle site article. This is a C-class biography so criteria for inclusion, and exclusion, should aim at the next better class. A relevant "Motto of the day" actually a hidden warning, Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Related discussions:

There are no WP:BIO references in the seven used. With the exception of the NYTimes ref, the references are all poor and promotional that do not meet BLP's requirement to Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.

While the NYTimes is a high-quality publisher, the reference written by a culture reporter barely mentions Ray at all, demonstrating no due weight or encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please note that per WP:RSP, Peoplemag is considered a generally reliable source. Cosmopolitan is listed at additional considerations. So I think that your claim that "the references are all poor and promotional" is at the very least partially false. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
As the commentators at RSN pointed out, being reliable does not mean it meets the criteria for BLP information. The editors commenting above are making similar statements. Do you require further explanation beyond what's already in these discussions? --Hipal (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm specifically responding to your claim of there only being one reliable source, not whether it meets due weight. I think that DUE is still up for debate, though I've made my case for already why I think it would meet DUE as seen in my initial vote.
I would further request that you specifically state how sources are promotional without broad claims. While I agree the ONUS is on me for arguing in favor of inclusion, I think common sense would also state that if you are going to argue a source is definitively promotional or unreliable, you're responsible for making an argument as to why it's unreliable. If you can't argue as to why a specific source is unreliable, please don't make that argument in a debate or argue ad nauseam that a source is unreliable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
...only being one reliable source.... I didn't make such a claim. Please strike. --Hipal (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I won't strike, because you did make such claim. This is the quote from above that I mean by you saying "only one reliable source": There are no WP:BIO references in the seven used. With the exception of the NYTimes ref, the references are all poor and promotional that do not meet BLP's requirement to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." This is at least a partially false claim. The magazine People, per WP:RSP (which I feel as if I should remind you reflects current Wikipedia consensus until it changes), is listed as a generally reliable source. This should suffice as high-quality. Cosmopolitan the magazine, per RSP, is listed at additional considerations. Not consistently high quality, but based on context it can be reliable. So with regard to sources alone, all sources supporting Set A are at high quality. If you don't think People is a reliable source, consider starting a thread on WP:RSN, but until consensus changes, we are to consider it as a generally reliable source. Please link a specific thread where consensus has decided that not all generally reliable sources are high-quality and appropriate for BLP (since I'm having trouble finding it myself), and please explain how People would not be reliable when the RSP entry for People does state that the magazine is appropriate for use with regard to BLPs except for the most contentious claims, in which cases support from a stronger source can be used in conjunction with People. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but that's a total misrepresentation. Misrepresenting other editors can result in a block or ban, especially where ArbEnf applies. --Hipal (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please explain to me how the above is misrepresnetation. I'm still waiting for you to link a relevant discussion to how People is unsuitable for BLPs, especially when WP:RSP says that People can be used for BLPs (though preferably with stronger sources for the most contentious claims, which I believe I have supported well enough with the New York Times' mention of the incident). And again, if you are going to say that a piece of content violates a policy, guideline or essay, please quote a line from such policy instead of having the opposition to do the quote mining for you. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
People is unsuitable for BLP Another misrepresentation. This is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
What else am I supposed to think? If I feel that an argument is insufficient I should be able to challenge it. Basic debate. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd hope you'd think more about what's been said in the linked discussions, and what's written in the relevant policies and guidelines. This isn't a debate, it's a situation where those seeking inclusion of article content should make a convincing policy-based argument. --Hipal (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You can't make a convincing policy-based argument if you don't cite policy, which I feel you have insufficiently done. it's a situation where those seeking inclusion of article content should make a convincing policy-based argument; precisely a debate. If you think that policy goes against it, then you should do more than just barely avoiding your points being Ipse Dixit (and in some cases, textbook ipse dixit) and explain more sufficiently how you feel PROMO is being violated. That's how we have a productive conversation. I feel that I've done quite a bit of explaining already on my position already, and we can't get anywhere if we just dig our feet into the sand and make ad nauseam arguments which increasingly seem like they're coming close to "I'm big you're little I'm right you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
We disagree, and the onus is on those seeking inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think I've provided my spiel. Consider refuting my points directly. Saying "it's PROMO" repeatedly without challenging my arguments isn't consensus building, and doesn't create a productive conversation. It's dangerously close to stonewalling. It prevents us from getting anything done. The onus isn't on me to find your arguments for you. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The one saying "it's PROMO" is you. Please stop. This is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't think I have been saying that outside of citing your arguments. Feel free to prove me wrong though with diffs. I will gladly strike when such diffs are accurately provided. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
How about we just look at [2] where you refer to the policy nine times, use variations on the word three times, and referred to a potential essay once. --Hipal (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
What did that lengthy opinion come in response to? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Caeciliusinhorto-public: In response to your comment, may I ask if you believe that Glossy's coverage on a general trend of influencers trying to market gummies is a better source? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not familiar with Glossy as a publication, but that certainly looks much more promising. Though it doesn't actually contain as much information about Ray as you might like; you could say something like In June 2021, Ray and former attorney Felicia Hershenhorn launched the skincare gummy Imarais based off of it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Understood. I do feel that it does cover Imrais as part of a general trend with regard to influencers starting their own gummy lines, mentioning Ray as part of a wider trend. One could even apply this line of thinking to Set A, and mention Ray as a frequent target of gossip magazines as mentioned in the NYTimes source. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Definitely a better reference, but apparently in response to the same push for publicity as the WWD ref. Relating it to set A is WP:OR. --Hipal (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't think applying a similar philosophy, or way of approaching information, to Set A would violate WP:OR. As evidenced by the Times source, [Machine Gun Kelly's] romantic life may not be as eventful as the tabloids suggest, but it’s eventful enough. This sentence would invalidate any OR speculations on the concept of the image being included since it's clear that reliable secondary sources have talked about this. The tabloids themselves, such as the directly-linked tabloid USMagazine in the Times' journalism, could be considered a primary source to this information as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Usage of ForbesCon Interview

Material in question
(Early Life section) Ray stated in an interview with Forbes contributor Frederick Daso that she grew up on a ranch and was homeschooled with her siblings.[1]

(Personal life section) In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick Daso, Ray stressed her belief in not using the platform OnlyFans despite calls to join the platform, viewing it as a "cash-grab".[1]


@Hipal The removal ForbesCon Interview is a revert that should not have been made at all. I've provided my reasoning in edit summaries, but if you did not read those, I'd be happy to put them here as well: Per WP:BLPSPS, self-published sources written by the subject are permitted to be included. Given that the material came straight from the horse's mouth with regard to Ray's words, this would suffice as material "written" by the subject as required by BLP since those words originally came from her. We really can't extract too much evidence against inclusion from WP:BLPPRIMARY either.

See the discussion on RSN about ForbesCon interviews? You yourself stated that FORBESCON states, Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Interviews aren't third party claims; they're first party claims. Your argument for removal would essentially fall apart from this alone. The phrasing I used also echoed the suggestion made by @JPxG on the thread: use common sense, and by @XavierItzm: Give it the same treatment as published by the interview subject.

The claims in both the questioned content as well are supported in primary and secondary sources:

Whether any of these sources are includable in Wikipedia remains up for debate, though because these crossreferences with other media both from tabloids and straight from the subject's mouth, this serves to verify the material. If they're all saying the same thing about her growing up...

A BLP reversion ironically works against your reasoning, which in the edit summary simply says "Revert per BLP". Please engage thoughtfully in the following discussion and assume good faith. If you claim that my insertions violate a policy, be prepared to defend your claim. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

remains up for debate No. BLP says to remove them, and keep them out unless consensus is otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not talking about placing the sources in the article. I'm talking about cross-referencing the sources used with other pieces of media available and they say the same thing. This is a misrepresentation (how ironic!). Please stop with them. If you don't like me using them on you, don't use them on me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also, if you're not going to provide an argument which is able to refute my claims that BLP allows for it (per WP:BLPSPS), then consider just dropping the stick and sitting this one out. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Previous discussions

I'm concerned that policy and discussions are being ignored. Some previous discussions include:

--Hipal (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article reads like it's written from a fan's POV, with the puffery and promotional-ish/defensive tone.

  • she perceives her early social media career as the result of hard work and not the sexualization of her character
  • citing the prevalence of performance-enhancing substances in the fitness industry as the reason for her quitting.
  • Ray accredits the growth of her social media following with her collaborations with WorldStarHipHop, though places greater emphasis on her lack of performance-enhancing drugs and photograph manipulation.
  • She has refused to get plastic surgery despite many firms sending her offers to waive fees for the practice in exchange for promotion, as has expressed disdain for competitors in bodybuilding who use steroids and other performance enhancing substances. In furtherance of this commitment...

Adding the material in question Ray stressed her belief in not using the platform OnlyFans despite calls to join the platform, viewing it as a "cash-grab" just adds more to that puffery and tone. Some1 (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

As with the RFC above, as long as material is kept to basic facts, is there an issue with inclusion when using BLPSPS? I don't see one. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
See WP:NOTPROMO (Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts). The Forbes Contributor article that you're trying to use comes across as a marketing effort (an interview to promote herself by using a Forbes contributor). I have added back the {{Advert}} template that was previously added by Hipal. Anyway, I suggest asking for more opinions at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Some1 (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Because Ray's career is promotion (mostly self-promotion), it's difficult to find anything about her that doesn't come from or mirror her public relations campaigning. Until we find such sources, there's little to say about her that's clearly encyclopedic in nature (NOT) and due mention (POV). This has all been said before, multiple times. That it needs to be repeated is a serious problem. --Hipal (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
What about BLPSPS and including basic facts about herself? You have not convinced me that BLPSPS is not fulfilled for including basic facts about her. Featured Articles of people in similar industries do this quite frequently; see Jake Gyllenhaal, Josh Hutcherson, Emma Watson, and the other 89 featured media article biographies). I see an issue with using it for exceptional or libelous claims, but for using it to support self-made claims about her own life? Any interview with anybody in her industry would naturally include a puffed-up introduction; even an interview from say 60 Minutes is arguably not immune from this when interviewing political candidates. Instead of completely gutting an available source, use it to the best that we allow. It may even be necessary to make an exception for topics like this as well; as previously stated, WP:5P5. If WP:5P2 can be verified by the subject's own words when it comes to their personal life and ancillary topics still merited enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (again fulfilling BLPSPS, as well as standard practice in other related articles, some of which are even Featured Articles like Brie Larson's Early life section where interviews are cited), then there is no reason to exclude material entirely. This debate is to be centered on how the information is to be written. If condensed to basic facts and attributing opinions based on the above examples presented, there is no issue. PROMO is misapplied to basic ancillary information; the information is verified by both primary and secondary sources as well in my above comment. These can be used as additional tools for verification. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
How will you condense: In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick Daso, Ray stressed her belief in not using the platform OnlyFans despite calls to join the platform, viewing it as a "cash-grab" to "basic facts"? Also, see WP:VNOT. IMHO, this article should go back to draft space. Some1 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Suppose this: In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick Daso, Ray stated she was not interested in joining the platform OnlyFans, despite calls from her fans to join the platform. Open to suggestions.
If this article was accepted at AFC, consider reaching out to the person who originally accepted the draft review. The original version before Hipal's removals was rated at C-Class at AFC and accepted.
As much as WP:VPNOT applies, inclusion is still contingent on discussion. I would suggest that if you can't provide a good reason for opposing inclusion of verified material, don't oppose it in the first place. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
The AfC was a total joke. Pretending otherwise is disruptive
Given we have an open RfC on similar topics, it's best to wait.
In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick Daso That's padding that appears to be a POV violation.
As I've already pointed out, I don't see how we'd be avoiding ABOUTSELF#1, 2, and 5.
Moving this article back to draft space is a very good idea. --Hipal (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
You can't just call everything you don't agree with disruptive without escalating. Please try to steer away from this battleground attitude. I think there is an argument to be made that BLP is being abused, or overly enforced, to advocate for unnecessary removals. In the end, Wikipedia's spirit is being hurt the most by these removals in a quest to appease the strictest interpretation of policy, whilst editors are forgetting that Wikipedia has no firm rules. Whether as a new rule or as an exception to the old ones, we shouldn't sacrifice our spirit.
I'd like for you to answer the following questions:
1. Explain to me how the "padding" is a POV violation. Attributed opinions are encouraged on Wikipedia as evidenced from RSP entries on sources such as Fox News.
2. We can avoid such points in ABOUTSELF. If you are going to claim that these are exceptional claims, explain how and why you believe they're exceptional; speaking of which, why do you think that these claims are exceptional?
3. Based on the content we have in the career sections, we wouldn't be too heavily relying on primary sources. We'd only be filling the sections on personal life and early life, supplemental sections to the bulk of her notability. Why would you think otherwise?
4. Most interviews outside of politics are inherently promotional, yet we still include them. The featured article examples What reasonable and common sense doubt would there be to this interview?
If you can't respond to the above questions, the latter three of which are points 1, 2, and 5 in ABOUTSELF which you cited, consider withdrawing your argument. I'm going to consider a refusal to explain further each of the three your inability to make a compelling argument. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
You can't just call everything you don't agree with disruptive No one is doing so. Please retract. --Hipal (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Consider using different phrasing instead of using the word "disruptive" repetitively when talking about material or positions you strongly disagree with. Calling another editor's work a total joke evokes to me a battleground attitude, and at some interpretations could be considered a personal attack. Would you like to respond to the four above questions that I asked in my previous comment? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Hipal courtesy ping; would you like to respond to the four questions I asked challenging your claims of how my intended inclusions violate policy? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
[3] --Hipal (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
inclusion is still contingent on discussion Yes, and you still haven't provided a reason why her decision to not join OnlyFans is something that needs to be included in the article. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it should automatically be included, per WP:VNOT: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted. If she says in an interview that her favorite restaurant is Subway, should that information be included in this article? Some1 (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
In the sources previously cited, both primary and secondary, includable and unincludable, I do think that the OnlyFans mentioning is one of the core questions that most content focuses on. It's also fascinating that so much potential estimated revenue was turned down. Not just to me but also other sources. It's one of the key questions asked in interviews as well. Not just in sources I have listed but most other recent publications as well. Subway vs the OnlyFans lack of participation is comparing apples to oranges, politics to sandwiches, a False equivalence.InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
"...despite calls from her fans to join the platform"... so what? A bunch of influencers and celebrities have fans (or trolls) telling them to join OnlyFans every day. This particular influencer declining to join the platform isn't noteworthy. If you still disagree (and you are free to, of course), wait for the RfC above that you started to end, then you can start another RfC about this OnlyFans stuff. Some1 (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I still would disagree. Which celebrities have had their lack of joining OnlyFans covered as frequently by Ray? None that I can think of in recent memory. Could you provide any other celebrities that have received the same coverage in sources as Ray? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Could you provide at least one reliable source from WP:RSPSOURCES that covers her decision to not join OnlyFans? Some1 (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
This has been a bit challenging to find. Personally I think that the guidelines should be a bit loosened when it comes to claims which aren't exceptional or could not reasonably be contentious such as cases of editors gaming the system, a debate for another time. I think that the coverage provided by Dexerto is suitable enough. Dexerto's entry on RSP actually states that the website is suitable in rare cases. Given the nature of online creators and their increased rare coverage, as well as considering the little potential reasonable damages which could be caused from further supported by cross references (some of which fall under BLPSPS), and given the due weight of OnlyFans coverage in many of the more recent pages published about Ray (at least from my Google searches), I think we can reasonably make the call to use Dexerto as a source for this claim. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I still disagree that her not joining OnlyFans is noteworthy per the lack of reliable, mainstream sources covering it. It seems like the RfC from above expired a couple of days ago [4], so you could always start an RfC about this to get other editors' opinions. Some1 (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Potentially. Been a bit busy as of recent with other things both on and off wiki so idk when I'll start it if I do. Might start a larger one which encompasses the entirety of the ForbesCon dispute similar to how the above RFC was tackled with set A and set B. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply



Re:[5][6]: The Cosmo ref is rather poor, and the author, Elizabeth Narins, does not make the claim but instead quotes Ray with, "I was slut-shamed in a way — everyone from my hometown judged me." The care that Narins took is being ignored when used to verify citing it as slut-shaming. Ray qualifies it, Narins takes care with the presentation, so content in dispute seems inappropriate even if the ref was stellar. It's also far more than is due, it's soapboxing, and it steps into SYN in ways inappropriate for a BLP.

Looking closer, I'm not clear where "excessive" comes from, so removed it as well. --Hipal (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't see where you are getting the soapboxing claim from. Could you potentially rephrase? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also, I'm not seeing in the source how Ray qualifies it. Could you provide me the quotes from the article that you are seeing as a qualification? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
InvadingInvader, just a reminder that if you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article, please declare it. Some1 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've read the policies. I've declared my COIs on my userpage. I have no relation of any kind towards Ray and just saw the subject as meeting our GNG, so I wrote the article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

RFC on ForbesCon Interview Usage?


Is this Forbes Contributor Interview, and Forbes Contributor interviews with the subject in general, appropriate for WP:BLPSPS/WP:BLPSELFPUB claims about Ray's personal and early life? Also, is ForbesCon appropriate for sourcing her decision to not join OnlyFans? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Yes. I've stated this in previous discussions (see those for my full views), but my belief is that if the interview was inappropriate or untrue, it would have been contested by Ray already. An interview is also arguably "written" by the subject since it came directly from the horse's mouth. It's similar to a non-English book like The Rainbow Fish; Marcus Pfister is credited as the author even though J. Allison James translated it, or in this case, like the ForbesCon writing down what Ray said. For filling in the Early Life section, and the Personal Life section, there should be no issue for using interviews for information about the subject outside of GNG-fulfilling material. Anything with any amount of reasonable contention would be solved with in-text attribution. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No per previous discussions (especially those at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#Forbes_Contributor_Interviews?), WP:BLP, WP:FORBESCON , WP:CONLOCAL, WP:IS. The author, Frederick Daso, likely has a conflict of interest with his coverage of Ray. --Hipal (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No per the previous discussions listed below by Hipal such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Forbes Contributor Interviews? (started by InvadingInvader) and the one right above this at Talk:Sommer Ray#Usage of ForbesCon Interview (started by InvadingInvader). This article has a problematic history of being used to promote Sommer Ray (see this article's revision history), and this Forbes Contributor interview just adds more to that issue. Individuals can easily lie (no matter how small) during no- or low-stakes interviews such as Forbes Contributor ones where there's really no oversight or fact-checking, and especially if a possible COI exists between the individual and the interviewer/contributor. If there are noteworthy, WP:DUE facts about Ray, then reliable sources would've covered it by now, making the ForbesCon interview a sort of last ditch effort source.
    Also, regarding the second question of the RfC about her decision to not join OnlyFans, a Forbes Contributor interview does not automatically make statements or answers noteworthy, notable, or WP:DUE for inclusion; that's a separate content-related issue, not a sourcing issue. So even if this RfC finds the ForbesCon interview "appropriate for sourcing her decision to not join OnlyFans", that does not mean that the piece of trivia about her not joining OnlyFans is DUE for inclusion, especially when there's a lack of reliable, mainstream sources covering it. Some1 (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • WP:FORBESCON: "Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons." But a statement by the subject in her own voice is not third-party, so it seems valid for anything covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. WP really doesn't care where subjects said/wrote what they said/wrote about themselves, as long as we're sure it's really them and not fake content. "claims about Ray's personal and early life", however, is vague. Is there anything controversial or dubious in those claims? Not every claim made by every subject about their own life is necessarily credible (c.f. George Santos and Rudolf Wanderone). DOes Ray have a document habit of confabulation? Do any of the claims in question conflict with secondarily sourced material about the subject? Trivia like "her decision to not join OnlyFans" seems reasonable to source to such an interview. Unless we have evidence that the interview was doctored in ways to make it misleading, like quoting sentence fragments out of context to intentionally distorting implications (the classic "I'm not a Nazi" → "I'm ... a Nazi"), then what is the issue? that Hipal is concerned with? It really doesn't seem to matter whether ForbesCon or perhaps even the interviewer in question are reliable, since we're not quoting them but Ray, and Ray is presumtively notable for the kinds of trivial and non-controversal statements about her own life and thinking that are covered by ABOUTSELF. So, I'm leaning toward yes unless some particular concern is identified and supported. PS: Most interviews even in major newspaper, TV shows like 20/20, and so on are "promotional" in a sense, unless they are scandal based. The interviewers believe the subject has something interesting to say and that people should listen and will entertained and informed and get to know a little about the subject as a person, or they wouldn't bother doing and editing and publishing the interview. And most ABOUTSELF material is written/recorded for self-promotional purposes; that doesn't mean we can't extract a few tidbits from it, carefully.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes because the source doesn’t seem to have such an issue that makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia use. For example, WP:FORBESCON rules out third party claims about living persons, but the source is not third party in this case because it’s the person itself speaking. Similarly, the source is from an interview so a Yes is probably the better vote for this source. Equalwidth (C) 04:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No. There are a ton of problems. First, WP:ABOUTSELF, as part of SPS, actually requires that the source be self-published. People above are saying "ah, well we can trust that it's at least an accurate interview" and, no, we literally cannot, that's what it means for WP:FORBESCON to not be a RS - otherwise we could use any random website for a source about anything related to a living person as long as it phrased it as a quote or attributed it to the person in question. Second, even aside from that, the things it's being cited for here are too unduly self-serving for WP:ABOUTSELF anyway; eg. the statement about why she doesn't use OnlyFans, if true, clearly serves to glorify her stance. Third, the "third parties" in SPS doesn't just mean "other people" - you're not supposed to use it to add poorly-sourced accusations about anyone or anything; it's meant for extremely uncontroversial biographical details about the subject, not for including their views on Life, The Universe, and Everything. You can't cite an WP:ABOUTSELF source to include someone calling a company a cash-grab, that's not what it's for. Finally, on top of all that, anything that can only be cited to a FORBESCON interview would clearly be WP:UNDUE anyway and should be excluded. --Aquillion (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you, Aquillion, for the nice summary of many of the problems, all of which had previously been discussed. --Hipal (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No for many of the same reasons already outlined. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply



Previous discussions include:

it would have been contested by Ray already That's completely irrelevant. We're not here to provide a soapbox for Ray. --Hipal (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not exactly "irrelevant", since you seem to be hinting that there is something suspect about the interview's contents, but without any evidence. But not very strong either, since someone might not bother to publicly object to an interview being edited in distorting ways or might not know about it. But WP is not in the habit of supposing that interviews have been doctored without a good reason to think that they have, or we would never trust any interviews at all.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The "interview" is almost certainly a promotional piece commissioned by Ray. Just look at the author's background. --Hipal (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Per SMcCandlish's comment and BLPSELFPUB, how does that prevent us from making non-controversial claims about the subject's personal life? Consider responding to the four questions I asked previously challenging your claims of how my intended inclusions violate policy. I've asked you to do this for over a week and you've refused. If you can't defend a claim, maybe don't make it? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
[7] --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
BLP requires consensus to include –  then let's work to develop a consensus. By refusing to discuss, which it seems like you have by simply repeating previous material and not diving deeper, it's borderline disruptive. You still didn't answer my four questions. I'll copy them down here if you'd like:
1. Explain to me how the "padding" is a POV violation. Attributed opinions are encouraged on Wikipedia as evidenced from RSP entries on sources such as Fox News.
2. We can avoid such points in ABOUTSELF. If you are going to claim that these are exceptional claims, explain how and why you believe they're exceptional; speaking of which, why do you think that these claims are exceptional?
3. Based on the content we have in the career sections, we wouldn't be too heavily relying on primary sources. We'd only be filling the sections on personal life and early life, supplemental sections to the bulk of her notability. Why would you think otherwise?
4. Most interviews outside of politics are inherently promotional, yet we still include them. The featured article examples (from the previous discussion) have them. What reasonable and common sense doubt would there be to this interview?
I stil await my answer. If you can't answer them, maybe reconsider your position. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please WP:FOC.
I believe your questions have been answered. In addition to what's linked above:
I mentioned WP:CONLOCAL because this RfC appears to be an attempt to ignore discussions, broader consensus, and relevant policies. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not seeing what you're referring to. Could you cite specific quotations from the links you provided which correlate to each of the four questions? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please drop it. See WP:BADGER. --Hipal (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Dude, I'm just asking which quotes you mean. I shouldn't have to find your arguments for you. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

[8] --Hipal (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:BADGER, Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine. I do not think I have been overly demanding in asking for which quotes you are meaning when you cite differences. I don't know how to tell you more bluntly that I should not have to find your arguments for you. With regard to your most recent response, I would recommend you take a look at WP:DROP and how "Just Drop It" comments stifle productive conversations. If anything, I see such comments as uncivil; feel free to strike if you agree.
Failing to have a productive conversation and repeating responses is disruptive to the process of forming a consensus. With that, let us please WP:FOC for the remainder of our time together here. Would you be able to please provide me with a more clearcut answer to my four questions? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
[9] --Hipal (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
To each their own, then. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply