Jump to content

Talk:Lupe Fuentes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Origin of his father?

On the page is written in spanish that his father is from Spain, but that city?, and what your ethnic origin? Andalusian, Castilian, Catalan etc ...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puszko (talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

1987 or 1990?

On the Howard Stern Show, Fuentes claims her birthday is 1990. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BmgqbfQR-A) Any explanation? Geeky Randy (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

She's been active in pornography since 2006. Draw your conclusions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. However, there is nothing conclusive about this. Please review the controversy section of Talk Dirty to Me Part III and you will know that it is completely plausible that she could have been born in 1990 even though she was active in 2006. Perhaps was should change it to 1990, since Fuentes clearly says she was born in 1990 on the Howard Stern Show? Geeky Randy (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
People lie. If she was underage in 2006, there would be reliable sources verifying it just like Traci Lords or Alexandria Quinn. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

wikipedia is pointless if it is inaccurate, Lupe fuentes is NOT a singer or a dancer, she is a producer and DJ, signed to several important REcord labels

http://www.vibe.com/article/interview-lupe-fuentes-makes-us-feel-so-high

 http://www.dmcworld.net/features/entry/features/lupe-fuentes

http://www.dancingastronaut.com/2014/05/lupe-fuentes-so-high/

 http://notabledance.com/2014/05/10/song-day-lupe-fuentes-so-high/

 http://newsflash.bigshotmag.com/features/29207/

Someone is malicously editing this page to try and revert her career. i am going to bring this to a higher authority because i cant sit around and argue with people who live to simply make this page inaccurate all day long

i have put a 2014 photo up 3 times, only to have some angry editor keep reposting a five year old picture, dont you people police each other or are you only excited to try and prevent me from editing this page because you have no interest in accurate information. maybe you should put that sylvester stallone and tony danza are former pornographic actors in their main description since they both did and that is a fact. oh i forgot, you "screen names" all have some personal agenda .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanseinfeld (talk • contribs)

FYI, if you are indeed Evan Seinfeld, the way you are editing Wikipedia is grounds for blocking. See Wikipedia:COI#Wikipedia.27s_position. Nymf (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@Evanseinfeld:, please try to calm down. We are not here to provide false information but we are also not here to promote the people on which we have articles. Saying that Fuentes was a pornographic actress is true and was her main occupation for years. So to remove it from the article entirely would be like trying to re-write history. While Stallone did appear in a pornographic movie, it was a small time movie and is a minor part of his overall career. In the article about him, we give it the attention that it deserves which is just one paragraph.
Now that you've given some sources, we can look into them and add too, not replace, the information in the article on Fuentes. But that will be done by editors that do not have a connection, either personal or professional, to her. Dismas|(talk) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy deletion

I would like this page about me to be deleted, as I find it is overly negative and personally damaging to me.

Please do so in accordance with the following policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_of_biographies_and_BLPs

Lupe Fuentes official (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You will have to submit an WP:AfD request and it might be deleted, depending on the consensus of the community. Nymf (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

Are there an sources for her nationality? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

According to IAFD, she is Spanish/Colombian (her father being Spanish, mother Colombian). --Λeternus (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits. --Malerooster (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Guy arrested for having her porn

I removed this section as poorly sourced/covered.--Malerooster (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reinstated the section with a stronger non-linkrotted source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't seem that notable. Certainly not a "controversy" for her, maybe the guy that got nabbed. Was this covered anywhere else? Needs a rewrite at the least, but I am removing unless there is consensus for inclusion.--Malerooster (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
"Doesn't seem that notable" should be disregarded under WP:NNC. Proper standard to consider is WP:UNDUE given [1][2][3]. It passes the scrutiny of WP:BLP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
It needs to be rewritten at a minimum. This seems like undue weight compared to how thin the article currently is. Also, I changed the title section. I will also probable see what the BLP board thinks. Thanks,--Malerooster (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Pre-music career/life needs more info in article

The early life section is too thin. The fact is the prior to recently becoming a musician, she was a notable porn actress and even today if you search for her name on Google that fact is made plainly clear. While I understand that to some people being a porn actress is negative thing for one's reputation, it is a well documented fact in this case and something she is largely known for still even if she wishes to change that. That means that at least some info on her former career as a porn actress should be mentioned, provided it is properly sourced. BLP rules do not require we removed "embarrassing" info that us properly sourced and relevant provided it is properly sourced, even if the subject of the autobiographical article might wish to exclude or downplay that info on Wikipedia. BLP guidelines state: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". This means that even if Lupe Fuentes wants to downplay or hide the fact she was a former porn actress as part of reinventing herself, that is not a valid reason to exclude or provide only brief mention of it under BLP policy to do so in and of itself .Sylvester Stallone's one to appearance in a soft-core porn film has a paragraph devoted to it on his article. Lupe was in porn for a good number of years and currently only has one brief sentence mentioning it in the intro, a section mentioning adult film awards she's won, and a section about a court case regarding suspected child porn she was involved in. Thus there needs to be info on her porn actress career in the early life section or a separate section, though how much should be determined by undue weight policy. --50.152.139.176 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Court case

Ok, so Lupe Fuentes appeared on behalf of the defense in a court case. It was referenced by the New York Post (which publishes gossipy, tabloidy entertainment news all the time). The doesn't mean it should be on the page. WP:UNDUE does not merely count words and say, "Well, if the article is short, trivial information sticks." Per WP:BALASPS, "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." It is disproportionate to the overall significance to the article topic (i.e. Lupe Fuentes) to include the information after all. If this court appearance is so important to her career, should we track down every time she was called to jury duty? Or, if the importance is that she helped out a fan, should we include all of her other charitable actions? Clearly not. She's not Traci Lords. She was not on trial for being an underage porn actress. Information about some other (not notable) person's legal issues should not be on her page.

Further, [4] is a clear violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Please don't reintroduce it. AbuRuud (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As you may have seen, this matter was discussed in the #Guy arrested for having her porn section above; as was stated there, this content passes the scrutiny of WP:BLP. There are perfectly acceptable WP:Reliable sources for this topic; we don't have to use the New York Post source that you and some other Wikipedia editors abhor. From what I can see, this court case is what is WP:Notable about her pornography career, which is why, because of your removal, there is barely anything in that section about that former pornography career of hers. This content is therefore very much WP:Due weight.
For others: Dismas reverted AbuRuud with this edit, stating, "Given the length of the rest of the article, I don't think this is WP:UNDUE, and it was reported (as referenced) in the NY Post." And I reverted AbuRuud with this edit, stating, "No, it isn't; it's a significant matter regarding an aspect of her former career." Also seen in that edit, AbuRuud came back at me with: "There is no consensus on this. Please take it to talk. Further, you're reintroducing sources against WP:BLPPRIMARY. Please stop." I don't need to be informed of what WP:BLPPRIMARY is, AbuRuud. Yes, I overlooked that leagle.com source is a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation. One of us could have simply removed that source...without removing all of the content. Whatever the case, I'm not that interested in this matter anyway. Take it to WP:RfC or whatever; I hardly care. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reinstated this without the court document. Mention of the court case satisfies WP:UNDUE. If it feels unweighted to you, you should add more about her career supported by reliable sources than take this away. Two other users have reverted you on this matter and I do believe we have consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Found this page via Reddit link. Regardless of previous editors' affiliations, this looks pretty NPOV already. Can we remove the warning? ChadMiller (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lupe Fuentes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lupe_Fuentes/Archive_1&oldid=920675020"