Talk:Desmond is Amazing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Content Issues

As per recent AfD, the main issue with this subject is that a "ten year old with an Instagram account" is not a valid WP topic.

Issues to be addressed to ensure content is up to standard:

• POV wording that make article look like a promotional page rather than reporting facts.
• Likely undue emphasis on "activist" agenda.
• Since subject is a child, there has to be more context from RS to inficate this is not just promotion by parent or others.

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: Removed 2 youtube links that were used as sources. Some WP:Undue phrases and peacock terms removed. Ordered page content by relevance. Merged bio and performance sections but made awards new section.

At this stage, the sources dont indicate any real activism other than the creation of his instagram "drag club" page. The subject should be treated as a child performer with only a few performances and accomplishments BUT with a significant amount of press coverage. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I request removal of page. I am his legal guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsetterfc (talk • contribs) 23:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

(Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horsemask (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

He is a paid drag performer, not working for tips. Huge difference. Also left off is that tipping by throwing money on stage is a common method of showing appreciation for a drag performance. Plus there are no factually correct nor neutral POV articles cited.

I will request removal via arbitration if Controversy section is added again. It is libelous, factually incorrect, uses biased sourcing and cites a Youtube video using sources without copyright permission.Upsetterfc (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have had a look at the deleted statements from the "Controversy" section. For obvious reasons, I will not provide a diff. To me, the second deleted statement appears to be original research, and should not be restored. The linked video may also indeed be a copyright violation taken by someone else from a non-free stream. The first statement may be considerable for inclusion, if the source is reliable and independent.

@Upsetterfc, please use "strikethrough" formatting to remove anything that could be construed as a legal threat from your comments, wherever you added that comment. Please clarify, explicitly, that you do not consider taking legal action against any specific Wikipedia editor. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of westernjournal.com as a legitimate source will be disputed. They are a propaganda site not using factually correct reporting.Upsetterfc (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: The actual source behind the statement seems to be The Daily Wire. It is linked from the Western Journal article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're relying on EITHER the Western Journal or The Daily Wire as sources, you're already in trouble. And I say that without even looking at the specific cite here. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Calton and Upsetterfc. Neither The Western Journal nor the Daily Wire is a reliable source, and both are completely unacceptable for use in a biography of a living person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above three users as well, and have added the page to my watchlist in order to ensure NPOV. The warnings on the page are not fully justified, either - the article's already passed an AfD, for instance, and I'm not sure I see the undue weight problem. SportingFlyer talk 07:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's a couple of possibly useful sources, something from cnbc [1] and a The Christian Post opinionpiece by a Michael L. Brown [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There are no legitimate sources regarding his performances. All sources are anti-LGBT or political propaganda. We have not responded to any of the current articles, so no source exists with a neutral POV. Any source citing drug use is either using an edited fake video (ketamine) or just innuendo (Alig). The only sources reporting this are either anti-LGBT or political propaganda. No legitimate news source will pick up any of these stories due to the lack of credible sources and facts.Upsetterfc (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing tags

Content issues tagged on page for post-AfD cleanup have been resolved. Original peacock terms and other fansite pov wording removed. Emphasis on performances and the minor community award have been reduced. Additional sources including an academic paper have been added. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

References Issue

Hi @Gleeanon409: Your putting what called bare url, a whole bunch of them, which provide the barest amount of information about a reference and are prone to link rot. The article quality is already fairly high and I would like you to maintain that quality but putting full size references in. Please look at WP:REFB. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That is about the most densest reason for obliterating a lot of good hard work. Just because a bare reference is not ideal you wiped out good referenced content and references. I have to slowly cut and paste everything I do, and your little action there just wiped out even more referenced content that I was trying to save. Such a shame. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It's easily found in the aricle history. Gleeanon409, consider using Wikipedia:Refill. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I can’t get it to edit or save to allow me to try anything.

@Gleeanon409: Sorry I should have mentioned refill. It was crass not to, but I left a talk page message yesterday and you never replied, so I assumed you were ignoring it, so I figured doing this. The article has been went through a ton of spam muck, vandalism and whole bunch of other crap stuff since it was created, but now in the last couple of months its been decent order and I would like to maintain it decent order. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Refill worked once but the second time it seemed to screw things up? Not sure how to fix it? Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead

"El Periódico de Catalunya states he is the most famous "drag kid" in the world,[10] Los Replicantes states he is the youngest professional drag queen in the world.[11]" This is not a summary of anthing in the article, needs to be moved per WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

done. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it. It is WP:PUFF and entirely subjective and there is insufficient coverage per WP:SIGCOV to support both statements. scope_creep^Talk 11:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:puff is about articles being inflated to avoid deleting which doesn’t apply here at all. Removing well sourced content, which you’ve been threatening to do, remains a bad idea. The statements were attributed to the sources, international news. Frankly this is what I would expect to be in the intro of the article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It is entirely subjective and you can't say it is true or false. It is the work of 1 reference and no work has been done to verify it, so it can't go in. WP:PUFF is for content that puffs up an article to facilitate promotion, and in this context is promotion. scope_creep^Talk 19:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

An easy Google search will verify that not only is Desmond is Amazing is a famous drag kid, he is nearly the only one. And although few young drag queens of Desmond’s age exist, only he is professional. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The work is in finding good secondary sources that confirm and verify it. @Gleeanon409: I meant to ask you several days ago, your now being paid to do this work are you? scope_creep^Talk 22:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Guessing you meant "not being paid." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Desmond Napoles → Desmond is Amazing – Desmond is Amazing is this professional performer’s stage name known internationally. He is likely the world’s most famous drag kid, as well as the world’s youngest professional drag queen. I think WP:STAGENAME is most appropriate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Move Agreed. Per WP:STAGENAME it should be moved. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If this is done, what should he be called throughout the article? This stagename is less of a "name" than many others. I know of no chapter and verse on this, see for example Lady Gaga and 50 Cent. I'm ok with keeping "Napoles". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The intro would be unchanged but in the rest of the article we would simply use ‘Desmond’, like how the sources do after stating his stage name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, use Desmond. This is also what we do in Alfred the Great, just highlight all mentions of "Alfred" on that page and you'll see. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that was an interesting comparison. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see any sufficient evidence for this move. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I see at User talk:Gleeanon409 that you and Gleeanon409 previously talked about this article. When it comes to moving it, I'm wondering if maybe there's a way to find common ground, by looking for an alternative. Perhaps by keeping his first name, and combining it with a disambiguator, for instance Desmond (performer)? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi 77.173.90.33 If there is a whole bunch of secondary sources that support then yea. scope_creep^Talk 10:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

An abundance of sources say both his real and his stage name start with Desmond, and that he is a performer. By finding common ground I did not mean you sending me on a trip to find sources that will satisfy you. So, I'll choose another path then. I'll add another comment shortly that lists many reliable sources calling the subject "Desmond is Amazing", and I'll simply stick with me agreeing with User:Gleeanon409 that the article should be moved. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

There must be solid evidence of it, backed by secondary sources. The definition of secondary sourcing is people who are talking about other people who are not connected in any way to those other people Effective independent thought. That's cool, you don't want to do the work, but that is what we do here to satisfy the requirements for real facts per WP:V and WP:BIO. I've been through all the references, three times now. The first time to see if he was genuine and that was months ago, the second time to clean-up the article and the third time to fix WP:CITEKILL. Hope that helps. If you can show three good sources that say he is a performer, then I will change my mind, in a New York minute. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No longer interested in this path. I've added sources for WP:STAGENAME below. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• • Desmond is only notable for his performances and appearances which he does as a professional under his stage name. If it weren’t for those he would not have gone viral and there would be no article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Sources "“Desmond Is Amazing” can rock a runway. That’s the stage name of Desmond Napoles, who [...]" ([3] at CNBC), "Wendy Napoles, the mother of 11-year-old Desmond Napoles (known by his stage name “Desmond is Amazing”), went [...]" ([4] at The Christian Post), "His stage name is Desmond is Amazing." ([5] at Times Internet), "Named Desmond is Amazing, the Facebook page gave Desmond the idea to use the same moniker as his stage name." ([6] at MailOnline), "The primary school-age boy is better known by his stage name Desmond is Amazing which [...]" ([7] at Daily Mirror), "Desmond Napoles, who goes by the drag stage name ‘Desmond Is Amazing,’ is [...]" ([8] at The Washington Times), "Desmond Napoles (stage name: Desmond is Amazing) is an 11-year old drag kid, [...]" ([9] at the official website), "Desmond Napoles (stage name: Desmond is Amazing) is [...]" ([10] at Shorty Awards), "Desmond Napoles, who goes by the drag stage name “Desmond Is Amazing,” is [...]" ([11] at LifeSiteNews), "Desmond Napoles, from New York - known by his stage name Desmond is Amazing - is [...]" ([12] at The Sun), "Desmond Napoles, who goes by the stage name “Desmond Is Amazing,” [...]" ([13] at Christiannews.net), "[...] Facebook fan page, called 'Desmond is Amazing' to share his continuing journey with others. The name stuck, and Desmond decided to use it as his official stage name." ([14] at WABC-TV), "Napoles, known on social media as Desmond is Amazing, was [...]" ([15] at The Independent), "The LGBTQ advocate is known as "Desmond is Amazing"." ([16] at BBC Online), "Desmond Is Amazing is a self-professed “drag kid.” He might only be 10 years old, but [...]" ([17] at Vogue, "Drag star Desmond Is Amazing is earning respect in the LGBTQ community." ([18] at Reuters) --77.173.90.33 (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think it is still oppose for me. I don't see any evidence that Napoles is a performer at the moment. I see a lot of news stories about him appearing at various venues, interviews and stories but explicitly nothing saying he is an entertainer. Possibly too early. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you don't see "any evidence" he's a performer. This move is suggested per WP:STAGENAME. All that matters is that sources primarily refer to Desmond by his stage name, "Desmond Is Amazing". Even if Desmond would be a soccer player or a scientist, it makes no difference for WP:STAGENAME. Sources literally say he's "better known by his stage name Desmond is Amazing" and say that he is "known by his stage name Desmond is Amazing". His Desmond is Amazing persona is the only reason this article even exists. Anyway, my last comment on the subject, because other editors will overwhelmingly support the article move, I'm sure. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources state he is a performer, that he is a professional licensed performer is also in the article. Sources also state that after his first performance in Jinx Monsoon’s video, he went viral performing in the NYC Pride parade. He then made numerous appearances under his performance name, including fashion modeling also under his performing name. All this sourced content is already in the article. We don’t have to like that he’s a performer to still acknowledge what the sources have shown to be obvious. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – Desmond's name is all over the reliable sources, which generally say "known as..." but always name him fist and last name first. Jazz Jennings is Jazz Jennings, not her real name which never appears anywhere in the two articles about her. That's not how Desmond's Mom decided to do things, so I don't see why we shouldn't follow suit with her decision, when the reliable sources have also followed her lead on this. See The Amazing Randi. Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The reliable sources generally only use his professional name in conjunction with talking about his performances. I think we should follow those. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:STAGENAME and Title of article

There is little doubt that Desmond is best known by his stage name Desmond is Amazing, the vast majority of reliable sources refer to him as such. He uses Desmond is Amazing professionally when he’s performing, on his social media, and for his many public appearances. An example of what I mean would be Lady Gaga, not Stefani Germanotta.

I think his stage name should be preferred throughout the article after the introduction, using ‘Desmond’ instead of ‘Napoles’. And I think the article title should reflect his stage name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, based on the references in the article (lots of amazing in their headlines), you have at least part of a point. Also, good idea not to go full-blown WP:BOLD on this, give it some time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly not unheard of in Category:American drag queens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The essay Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent may have something helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we’re already following that essay, I was careful to leave out more personal information. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Desmond should be added to that category. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

He's been in it for awhile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn’t see it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding subsequent references to the subject of the article, it's a somewhat tricky case. The guideline says:

People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, the Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used.

The tricky part in interpreting the guideline, is that his stage name includes his real first name, with no surname—pseudonymous or otherwise. Since he doesn't have a pseudonymous surname, one choice here would be to use the pseudonym "Desmond Is Amazing" in its entirety, every time; but that would be awkward.

The approach taken so far appears to be to abbreviate the pseudonym down to just "Desmond"; but that gets into the tricky part, because that matches his first name, which conflicts with another part of the guideline which clearly forbids that: Generally speaking, subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which is not relevant—even if true.

The default case at the top of the guideline offers this: After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only.

There doesn't seem to be a slam-dunk solution here, but it seems to me since Napoles is still a minor and not in a position to legally choose his own name, and that using the full pseudonym every time is awkward, opting for clarity for the reader argues for using just his surname as the best option that meets all the recommendations within the guideline. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with at least part of this assessment, I think it’s very awkward to favor his surname, which he does not really use, nor do most of the sources, when he is performing or speaking, or appearing in public. We agree he’s a minor, but in my view he wouldn’t do anything including using a stagename unless he wanted. Also because he’s a minor I think his surname, although public, should be minimized. This case might be one where his stagename needs to take precedent. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Minimize"? What's the purpose behind that? Either we are trying to hide his last name as a minor, or we aren't. If we are, all occurrences of his surname (as well as his mother's) should be removed, and then they should be REVDEL'ed so he can't be doxxed from the history. I'd be willing to listen to an argument in favor of that position, if you want to make one. If we aren't doing that, then "minimizing" it makes no sense at all; if it's present once in the article, it might as well be there a hundred times. From what I've seen, his name is all over the reliable sources, which means, I see no reason to avoid it here.

In response to "in my view he wouldn’t do anything including using a stagename unless he wanted," no doubt you're right about that, but what he wants is irrelevant, for the purposes of this question. It simply carries no weight in how we decide the question. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The majority of sources refer to him as ‘Desmond is Amazing’ then shorten it to Desmond. Common sense is to follow what the sources do and what any reader would expect. He’s known for being a professional performer. The page you cite says ‘generally’ so then logically that is not the same as without exception. I think this is a perfect example of why that rule is not always followed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot's "Napoles" seems preferable at this time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the consensus is towards as is. I will leave it open for several more days and see if anybody else turns up. scope_creep^Talk 10:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Or if it is, it's not informed by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, so doesn't carry the same weight as opinions that do follow it. Some of the sources are applying a style manual that isn't the same as ours. In particular, many of them often refer to any child by their first name, but we don't do that. For example, this snippet from Shirley Temple (emphasis added):

Fox Film songwriter Jay Gorney was walking out of the viewing of Temple's last Frolics of Youth picture when he saw her dancing in the movie theater lobby. Recognizing her from the screen, he arranged for her to have a screen test for the movie Stand Up and Cheer! Temple arrived for the audition on December 7, 1933; she won the part and was signed to a $150-per-week contract that was guaranteed for two weeks by Fox Film Corporation. The role was a breakthrough performance for Temple.

So, it doesn't depend entirely on what reliable sources do, since we have our own style manual that covers romanization, capitalization, hypenation, italicization, and use of names. When it's about verifiable fact—where he was born, when he started performing—yes, of course; we follow the majority of reliable sources. When it's not about fact, but about style, we follow MOS:; and in this case, what we should be following, in my opinion, is WP:SURNAME, just like with Shirley... er, I mean, with Temple. Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Gleeanon409 said,

The majority of sources refer to him as ‘Desmond is Amazing’ then shorten it to Desmond.

They don't "shorten" his stage name, they simply do what the majority of news sources do with any child: they refer to him by his first name, "Desmond". By Wikipedia's style guide, however, we don't do that with children; we refer to them by family name. Look at this version of "Jazz Jennings" for example, when she was fifteen. Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That is one way of inferring why the writers call him Desmond instead of Napoles. Another way is to assume, like most drag queens, he is referred to in articles by a shortened form of his drag name, which makes perfect sense. Which is what I have wanted the entire time. He is undoubtedly the most famous drag kid in the US, and probably the world. But he is merely the tip of the iceberg as drag has gone mainstream and more and more drag kids will become famous. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, you might be right about that, although we don't really know what’s going on inside their heads when they write it that way. But luckily, given our Style Manual, we don't have to. As long as we stick to reliable sources for matters of fact, and MOS for matters of style, we’re good. As for “more and more kids...”, maybe, but WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I’ve never suggested we not stick with reliable sources, so that’s a non-issue. The concept of drag kids was virtually unheard of even five years ago, with the mainstreaming of drag that’s changing. Drag Kids is a prime example of that. As for Desmond, he is only known as a drag kid in his drag persona and performances. It’s surprising to wedge his surname into an article all about his performing. I think it’s disappointing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

“Desmond is Amazing” in lede

Hi @Gleeanon409: Solid work on the article, but it now says Desmond Is Amazing in the lede, which gives a false impression and is against consensus. Last months RFC stated no consensus to rename the article, but throwing that onto the lede is much the same. The lede is now also too big and it is bit promotional as well. I think the lede needs a copyedit, scope_creep^Talk 23:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I’m not sure what you’re talking about, Desmond is Amazing has been in the lede for months, before I even knew of him, and is hardly misleading, he is known for his performing, public speaking, modeling, acting, activism, and social media, all done as “Desmond is Amazing”. As for the rest? He’s quite accomplished so the lede should summarize those accomplishments. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: Sorry about that, I never saw it, I should have checked it really. When that is taken into account, the lede is really not too bad. scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep: is the template still needed then?

I personally think we could still consolidate the lead a bit, though I don't know that we need to hang a template on the article in order to do that. The second paragraph, for example, has some biographical details that are probably better suited for the main article rather than the lead. I would also suggest we could substantially reduce the number of inline citations there as well: there are quite a lot of them and they tend to make it choppy and difficult to read. We don't have to get rid of them all, but technically all of the information there should also be covered and cited in the article body. I think including the awards is fine, but we should be sticking to summarizing the facts as succinctly as possible in the lead and then covering them in appropriate detail later in the body. That being said, I think this article is coming along nicely! CThomas³ (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yip. @Cthomas3: I agree with all of your comments. Its not the worst lede I've seen, but certainly it should be more encyclopedic, factual instead of the CV'ish style there at the moment. There is around 18 citations in the lede which would be an averageness-ish number for a deceased persons bio article with a couple of obits, so it is a lot. I think the article could easily remove a whole bunch as well. The second paragraph in the 2017 section, covers a three months period, although it has June 2018 stuck in the section for some reason, it has a lot of extraneous detail that provides no value for the reader or perceived, e.g. In 2018 Napoles also modeled a fashion series for his Instagram channeling a series of homages to LGBTQ icons The minutiae of life, promotional and non notable. It needs a good copyeditor to bring the citation count down and remove both run of the mill, non notable content, make it more readable, less choppy and of higher quality. scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve trimmed the cites so there is only 11, mainly covering the most contentious material and quotes. Desmond is an exceptional LGBTQ celebrity which is astonishing for him being 12! There is one sentence covering his first performance, and one sentence when he came to wide attention, and then rather brief overview of his surprising assent over the next five years.

As for the body of the article I think it’s all too soon to dismiss anything as being trivial as his career has just launched. He’s designing fashions but that’s not yet included as no sources are covering in depth. I think it’s up to the reader to judge what they think is relevant. The example ‘Instagram channeling a series of homages to LGBTQ icons’ is quite surprising that any child would do such a campy photo shoot to include Divine! That he’s even aware of these queer icons let alone doing photo shoots honoring them is amazing. For now I think the fairest thing is to just include items in as much of a chronological order as possible as it’s too soon to judge what’s actually trivial. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

On policies that cover social media notability, usually a person needs to have at least 250k followers before the stuff becomes notable and he is reaching it quickly, but even then the individual aspects of it need stand-alone notability. On covering particular shows, if there is good secondary sources on stuff he attends, then its probably notable. If it primary then no and some needs to be removed. Listing every bit of minutia makes it look like trivia, which is explicitly banned and in that case you put only the most important stuff. People don't read trivia unless their fans and so if turns into a fan page it will be heavily copyedited by the copyeditors guild or me and a lot of it will come out. It not up to the reader, its up to WP:V and WP:BIO and consensus. He gets a lot of press so it hard to judge. scope_creep^Talk 10:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Social media notability has zero to do with any of this, it’s hardly even mentioned except that he unsurprisingly uses it. I don’t even bother looking at his various channels.

Instead he is generally notable for significant media coverage, which is what the entire article relies on. He might also be a social media star but that is secondary to his media fame. I see very little use of primary sources at all. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyedit

I plan to do a copyedit. The lede has exploded with a lot of extraneous detail and the body in bits needs work. scope_creep^Talk 00:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

As has been shown a few times you’ve made some miscalculations on LGBTQ and drag content. The lede is roughly a fifth as long as the article. It has not exploded as you assert but only covers the highlights of this young artists life. Instead of making cuts you know will be opposed you could post a draft of a lede you think would be better? Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion, Gleeanon409. I would be happy to help review a revised lead section. scope_creep, would you be willing to make the first pass and post it here? CThomas³ (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, not really, but less so now as its not the process. I was really keen last night and had a plan, but with sunrise its gone. Content is content and the reasons for supposed miscalculations was I was hoping I could guide or cajole you into doing the work yourself, but it hasn't worked; very few established editors can see how their own work can be improved and I'm too busy on other stuff, hence the skip to the next section discussion but still the same conversation. Its a good article but it could be better. I think the work needs done and I'm pushing to get it done, but I think it needs an independent editor, perhaps somebody from the Guild to go over it. There doesn't seem to be the appetite for it here. I know there is a higher quality article in there and I think it could lose 10%-30% and still maintain the quality. It a solid article. I also not keen on the category, American drag queens, seems to me to a wrong target and another cat would perhaps be more appropriate. I was planning to start an RFC on it. I will come back in six months. scope_creep^Talk 09:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve taken yet another try at rewriting the intro. I’ve also removed the tag for now though anyone is welcome to re-add if they’re able to work through the issues.

As it’s Pride month, and Desmond is undoubtedly making more headlines I’m expecting new content to come in, but I think the current structure leaves room for where new material can fit while the intro successfully summarizes the overall work. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Performances

After seeing the exoansion of this article over the past 6 months, I've switched the performances section title to "notable performances" and the bullet list to paragraph style, as not every performance should/needs to be listed (we have gone from challenging notability to over-coverage of every appearance). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t see the point in having that list. I think it should go. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability

I have heard rumors of child abuse/exploitation regarding this kid and CPS has been called multiple times on this family. It could just be a way to make him seem more famous than he actually is.--LadyData (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The rumors aren’t true but the abuse of wasting child services agancies’ resources to follow up on those claims sure is. Despite hundreds of cases alleging abuse through several agencies, all taking time from actual abuse cases where children desperately need authorities to help them, there has been zero evidence of any abuse. These cases have largely been whipped up by right wing conservatives. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Criticism POV template?

@Radiohist: Could you offer some feedback on your concerns for tagging the whole section? How should it improve? Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: Thank you for your patience. I apologize for not being able to join the discussion earlier. Well, I think that the article does sound far too defensive of Desmond. I agree that a as a performer his art should be defended, however, there are other parts of the subjects life which have deleted for no apparent reason. For example this statement, In 2019, Desmond was criticized by conservative pundits for associating with gay activist and former Club Kid Michael Alig, who was convicted of killing his roommate. Desmond was pictured in a video next to Alig, below a painting with the word "Rohypnol", a date rape drug. Desmond also simulated inhaling ketamine, a drug used recreationally for its hallucinogenic and trance-like effects, on a live stream with drag queen Bella Noche. It was removed on the basis that is poorly sourced, but several publications identified as reliable sources and not alt-right websites have published this controversial information. Why wasn't it added back to the article.

Apart from that, due the long explanation of his performances and his gigs, the article as a whole violated 2 of Wikipedia's core rules - 1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion; self-promotion and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion; Advertising, marketing or public relations. I think we should explain more about the Alig controversy and consider seriously rewritten certain parts of the articles in order to decrease self-promotion and increase the article's neutrality. Radiohist (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Radiohist: thanks for getting back. I think the Alig content might be easier to tackle so I suggest we start there. As far as I could tell this was mainly, possibly solely something whipped up on blogs to attack Desmond, tie him to a murderer, insinuate pedophilia, as well as drug use. We can only use reliable sources for this. If you can find any I’d be happy to look them over and see how they can be incorporated. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: I think it does merit mentioning because I don't think it something "whipped up on blogs". I agree with the falsity of the allegations except the last one - There are videos of Desmond talking about ketamine, demonstrating how you consume it. It is disturbing to hear a little kid talking about taking drugs. Doesn't seem to be a conspiracy theory.Radiohist (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Radiohist:, well the sources, reliable one, have to make the facts for us. Please link any here and I or someone else will be happy to see what might work. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Radiohist, are you referring to the segment available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmrp3JVFrb8 for example? If so, then this revokes this claim in so far that it seems to be the adult person in the background who brings up this narcotic. The child seems playful, though then replying to this by making a gesture which resembles one linked to cocaine abuse. The individual who published this video must have intentionally made a false claim in the title. I am sorry but as you did not seem to properly asses this short segment, do you not think that it may raise the question of whether you are in a position to suggest edits to this article? Aside from this, I am not sure whether the adult person in the background, who seems to be supervising the child, is doing so responsibly. No, this is not about declaring the child as, for a lack of a better word, incompetent, but they are being exposed to reading what seem to be irrational and condescending commentaries about them such as "Is this what this world has come to?" and "Hitler was right". lmaxmai (talk) 19 July 2019 (UTC)

In my view the section about criticism currently seems more like a section devoted to elaborating that criticism is neither necessary nor welcome. Therefore I support the banner that its neutrality is disputed. I understand that this is a delicate subject and if I mention criticism then criticism of a reasonable kind is meant. I understand that there is some influence but the claim that if anything here would be seen as unusual it would be because institutions and parents are suppressing all other children seems so generalised and convenient that it borders on being a conspiracy theory. That they would expose themself to the spotlight as a minor, possibly underestimating the commercialisation, not to say exploitation that it may entail, consuming even supposedly strong adults, to me at least it seems suspect. lmaxmai 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lmaxmai:, I do wonder about parents who put babies and children into the fame spotlight. Do they really expect that even if their kid is stellar they’ll never get extremists and haters of some kind?

In any case I think if anyone finds reliable sources—that aren’t simply grounded in hatred toward LGBTQ people, or progressives by proxy—we should look to incorporating them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I know I haven't been involved in this discussion up until now, but I just found some sources that support the story of Desmond being with Michael Alig:

1. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/desmond-napoles-gender-identity-ideology/ 2. https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/the-exploitation-of-drag-kid-desmond-is-amazing/ 3. https://spectator.us/desmond-amazing-child-drag-queens/

Whether they're too subjective to cite for this article or not is something that needs to be discussed, but the fact that that story's been so widely mentioned across this variety of different sites is reason enough to try to include it in the article one way or another.Neateditor123 (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I’ve asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Michael Alig interview of Desmond is Amazing to see which sources to focus on. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I've posted over at the RS Noticeboard that I agree that the Criticism section is POV. It's not just "right-wingers" and homophobes that are concerned about this kid, and criticizing how this kid is being promoted. Unfortunately, most of the LGBTQ community discussions I'm seeing are not in what can currently be used as RS sources.

I'm looking back at the official instagram run by the child's mother, and it looks like all the #ClubKid posts she had dedicated to Alig have been recently edited to remove the mentions of Alig. There used to be voluminous references, including photos of the child with Alig, and photos of the child dressed as Alig.

What I would say from reading some of the LGBTQ community concerns out there is that it has absolutely nothing to do with gender expression (everyone is of course supportive of the child expressing himself freely). It's the same sort of concern shown any time a child is routinely dressed and painted up to look like an adult, and performing for adults.

As long as the sources do not include inaccuracies or prejudicial, attack language, the fact they are by social conservatives is not enough to rule them out. Wikipedia is not written by or for liberals or conservatives, progressives or right-wingers. No matter what outlet they write for, all journalists have opinions. Sources do not have to be neutral themselves to be used, as long as the language we use here in the articles in neutrally-worded. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I do want to acknowledge that there are sites out there that are using this child as a pawn to smear the LGBT community as a whole, and that some of the sites that are talking about this child contain hideous hate speech as well as grotesque inaccuracies about the communities in question. Of course that is horrible and sites like that can't be used. But that doesn't mean that valid criticism should be buried, or that the most extreme of those sites should be considered representative of all people who are concerned for this child. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan: what relevance do deleted posts from his mother's social media pages have here? Frankly, I think even discussing them on a talk page is pretty close to a BLP violation - and at best they're just irrelevant and don't have any place in the article. WP:NEWSORG says that opinion pieces, even if they are published in otherwise reliable sources, are not generally considered reliable for claims of fact. So what are you suggesting should be added? Nblund ^talk 01:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund:Thing is, I'm not actually suggesting we add it. Just comparing it to some of the other gushy "sources" that are currently being used that have a similar lack of neutrality. Nblund, you do realize that this child's official instagram account, run by the mother, to which we are referring and you are calling a possible BLP violation for simply discussing it on talk, is currently being used as a source in this article? Go look. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and those should probably go as well. But there's a bright line, in my view, between using crappy sources for innocuous claims about the number of followers an account has (WP:ABOUTSELF) and using crappy sources to make contested claims that could be harmful to a person's reputation. We're not going to improve things by digging further in to his social media.Nblund ^talk 18:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Edits to the criticism section so far today look like it's moving in a better, more neutral direction. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

“Public image” section

I’m missing the concept for this section. Maybe the title is unintentionally misleading?

His entire career is Desmond is Amazing, which is his public persona.

This seems more confusing than helpful. To be fair I think his critics hate everything he is and does, so I’m unsure this has helped much. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC on how to present content

El Periódico de Catalunya, and The Feed, states Desmond is Amazing is the most famous "drag kid" in the world, Los Replicantes states he is the youngest professional drag queen in the world. What is the best way to encyclopedically present this? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Comments

For those wondering, the only other drag kid, a relatively new phenomena likely traced to the mainstream availability of RuPaul’s Drag Race, is Canada’s Lactatia who is around the same age but does not appear to be a professional dq. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

And Miss Mae Hem from Ohio? ·Carn !? 15:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reliable sources calling her the most famous or youngest professional? Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Michael Alig show

Are there any reasons why we should not mention it?·Carn !? 14:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Page up for the previous discussions. I think it should be mentioned. Alig has been part of this family's story from before the kid's birth. The mother, who runs most of the kid's official social media, used to profusely tag and mention Alig, on this child's official accounts as well as hers. Alig was mentioned in their bios. After the most recent scandal, she went back and deleted the Alig mentions, but there are still screen shots out there, including many photos of her dressing the child as Alig. You can see the discussions above and on linked boards. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

All that WP:Original research doesn’t really help. We have yet to locate a WP:Reliable source, which as far as I’m aware is the only reason it hasn’t been seriously considered. If one or more is found we can take the issue, again, to the WP:RSN to confirm they are indeed considered reliable for the proposed content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No, not everything needs to be dragged out at the boards. If there's consensus at talk, that is sufficient. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Given the frequency of various anons, and even posters on talk to connect this young person with a murderer and drugs, combined with the already stated interest to engage in original research to do so, I’ll err on the side of caution and WP:BLP to get more eyes on such potentially controversial content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Gleeanon, you have been given a "do it again any you're getting blocked" warning by an uninvolved admin for this sort of behaviour before, where when other editors express concern about how children are being treated, you cast aspersions on those editors motives, rather than assuming good faith that editors here simply want to document concerning behaviour. You are doing it again. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Documenting concerning behavior" is not Wikipedia's job. I don't see a talk page consensus, and I think a discussion at WP:BLPN would be warranted if editors think this is imperative to include. Nblund ^talk 00:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, I think you know better than that, and to threaten me for simply doing what we’re supposed to do —> editing cautiously on the WP:BLP of a legal minor.

Given that similar content was removed after a notice at the WP:BLPN, and a handful of proposed sources were fully rejected as unreliable at WP:RSN, I’ll lean on the community resources to exercise caution here.

You’re the one that mentions finding proof by searching for screenshots of deleted content. That certainly sounds like original research but to be safe we could ask at that noticeboard for clarification. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Every time this comes up, you both claim I said things that I did not. You do not need to school anyone here on policy, or wikilawyer. What is fact is that this child and his family already are associated with Alig. What is also clear is that some editors are very determined to keep this out of the 'pedia, by fighting about the quality of the secondary sourcing that documents the situation. I am not the one editing to "right great wrongs" here. I don't even edit this article or the related ones some here edit. But I do notice who is routinely POV-pushing along certain lines and I have concerns about that. Often, the people who immediately invoke "RGW" when someone raises a moral issue, are raising red flags that I think the community should pay attention to, especially when they are defending someone who habitually resorts to personal attacks and misrepresentations in their responses. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I think your comments speak for themselves. Relying on verifiable facts in reliable sources is core to Wikipedia. It’s unclear to me why anyone would even be digging to find deleted content from a subject, let alone a minor, and his mom. I’ll wait for reliable sources to do the research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Digging? It's the kid's official account, run by the mom, linked from this article. This is the exact same stuff that was discussed on the board, and you are misrepresenting it in the exact same ways you did then. As I said then: this is not an argument for using the official social media (though people are using it on these BLPs when they like the content), I only brought it up because you pretend that editors are lying about the fact this is a real situation. Lack of RS sourcing doesn't change reality. Nor does it mean I'm going to put in non-RS sourced material. I only bring it up because you have repeatedly accused editors of lying about the situation, rather than it simply being something that sources WP considers reliable haven't always wanted to write about. And when they do, you have edit-warred to try to keep it out. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources on the connection, then we should mention it. We should not leave it out simply because of personal feelings. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course not. But, unless there has been new coverage, the sourcing remains quite weak. Nblund ^talk 01:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Rather than arguing opinions, we should be discussing something concrete. Given WP:BURDEN, those who wish to include the material, should simply list a few sources below that support it, so we can discuss it. If that doesn't resolve the situation, we can try WP:RSN, but we should start here, first. Until there's some consensus, WP:BLP says to err on the side of caution, and since objections have been raised, that means to not include it for now. There's no deadline.

Corbie, this one statement is concerning: "Lack of RS sourcing doesn't change reality." In the absolute, you are, of course, correct. However, here in Wikiworld, articles don't reflect reality; they reflect reliable sources; and that goes double for biographies of living persons. Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Despite vigorous claims to the contrary, reliable sourcing to include any of this seems to be non-existent. If there are reliable sources then make them freely available so we can gain consensus on what to include. I consider the matter closed until then. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I translated the article into Russian and I had to do some fact check.

@Gleeanon409: this article is not your WP:OWN. I do not consider this edits constructive.

1. There is no source indicated in the paragraph. Sources are in another section. According to WP:CITEDENSE it is not quite right.
2. The words that he "identified with ... drag queen" and "was captivated by the show's drag queens" are WP:ORIGINAL (no such statement in the source)
3. You deleted the information that he asked you to buy pink dresses (rather than just taking household items) at the age of six - return it, please.

I ask you not to make WP:EDITWAR plz ·Carn !? 15:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! You might have missed the question with Desmond himself:

How did you get into drag? When I was two years old I used to take my mum’s heels, bed sheets, towels or even cardboard and put them on my body to make pretend dresses and on my head to make pretend wigs. I loved playing dress up. Sometimes my mum would be watching RuPaul’s Drag Race and I would stop playing with my toys and watch it with her. I thought the drag queens were so beautiful and amazing and I said ‘I want to do that!’. So I just kept dressing up and it’s what I like to do.

I hope that helps. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Fact that you undo others users work without proper base don't help. In this words there is no statements that he identified himself with drag queens. He imitate them - we know that. And this is only 1 question of 3.46.188.23.100 (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Desmond says - “I thought the drag queens were so beautiful and amazing and I said ‘I want to do that!’. So I just kept dressing up and it’s what I like to do.“ That is exactly him identifying with the Drag Race queens. Above that he explains how he fashioned household items into dresses and wigs. Your other edits were also unconstructive.

Delinking grand marshal because it doesn’t yet mention LGBTQ is not the measure of how we link to other articles.

And inserting about other dresses when he was six is just superfluous. It doesn’t add to the article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(3) It doesn’t add to the article. There is no reason for such a conclusion. As soon as parents began to buy clothes for his hobby, public success immediately followed.

(2) Desmond says - was captivated ≈ "I thought the drag queens were so beautiful and amazing", ok. But "identified with ... drag queen" this statement does not follow directly from his words, this is your original perception of them. This statement is about the human psyche, not his behavior. Deleting the template that there is doubt about the phrase before reaching consensus is not good.

(1) I gave you the argument that according to WP: CITEDENSE there should be a link. You silently roll back.

(0) I reported here about this situation.·Carn !? 08:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Due to "When he was six ... he got his first non-homemade drag clothing" in bio section and to demonstrate goodwill I remove this question.

Replaced identified with - now inspired by - repeating his own words. I put ciations in the article again, hope you will not go against editing community's established practice again.·Carn !? 11:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You think MOS:CITELEAD shouldn't have souces? ·Carn !? 06:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD we don’t need references there, they should be in the article later. There can be exceptions but minimally.

Also as far as I’m aware there has been no inaccuracies, everything has been double-checked. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Chronological bio vs. Insta

Part "In June 2018 he had nearly 60,000 followers.[13] As of August 2019 he has 181,000 Instagram followers.[15][b] The New York Times estimates that as of September 2019 there are more than a hundred public drag kids in the U.S.; Desmond has the biggest following." seems too long (for this section) - better shorten it out, or just place somethere else?·Carn !? 10:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have combined the first two statements. They show his progression. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Autism

I think that sources strong enough to say that his mother says so.·Carn !? 11:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ll check it but it looks fine. We had this is before but the source wasn’t strong enough. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The main statement looks fine, I’ve removed this as I feel we’re crossing a line by discussion of effects of medication, and giving his physical measurements. “She also mentioned his slim appearance due to medication (at the age ten he was four feet three height).” Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Bias

So no mention of Michael Alig, love letter from Tom O’Carroll, and dancing for money at gay clubs at 3am while removing articles of clothing? I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emlodik (talk • contribs) 23:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The content is based on what *WP:Reliable sources* report, and written in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies on biographies of living people. If you feel something should be changed or added please use reliable sources to bolster the position.

If you have a source but you’re not sure it’s reliable enough, you can post it here and someone will check it out. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)