Talk:Selena/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit request from 63.231.116.52, 23 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} List all of Selena awards: Furia Musical, other Mexican Awards..

63.231.116.52 (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 18:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

reverting back "official" web site of Selena

Hey I have reverted, somewhat added back, the information that was thought not to be Selena's "official" website, when the web site, in fact, is owned by Selena's family. I am just writing it here, so I won't get in trouble. AJona1992 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't a question as to whether the site was the official site. The question was whether the site added any value to the page. The site appears to be nothing more than a store front to buy stuff. If the family simply wants to capitalize on her fame, that doesn't lend much credibility to the "official" site. It seems like that site falls under WP:ELNO#5. BTW, the revert put in a bad link. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Your right! The family really doesn't put in effort in trying to teach the world about Selena, it's us fans who do, it makes me sick that all they want to do is "sell" her with complication albums every year of the same songs. But unfortunately this is the only official site from her family, in the web site, they have archives of past (not recent lolz) awards of Selena and her certifications for her albums. They also have a short biography of Selena which really doesn't tell the world who she was, as a entertainer and as a person, which is sad, because there are numerous specials and books and magazines about her that has very good information about her, but I don't know if citing information from there will be ok?. I tried calling them, but they are nothing like Selena they are very rude when you ask them "simple" questions like "Is it true, Selena's father, holds the rights to all her earlier years [music]"? and they would get mad very fast! But hey, what about unofficial sites, like they have accurate information is there anything wrong with citing information from there? Thanks AJona1992 (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing that says that an external links section is required. Your comments support the exclusion of this "official" site. It doesn't need to be included just because it is official. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your so right, JLO, Shakira, Michael Jackson, etc., has official sites, but they really don't need to be included in their pages, ooo deleting them right now, thanks dude! haha AJona1992 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing the links in other articles would be unproductive and it would appear that your intention is to be disruptive in an attempt to make a point. Doing so is not a good idea. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Take your OWN advices, oh wait I used the word "own" so you can't read correctly I am so sorry I mean take your comment and flush it down the toilet. LOLZ AJona1992 (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Is there any source (or mention) anywhere that supports that she was a Polka musician? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Tejano music" is blended with Polka music. AJona1992 (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But was she a Polka musician? Did she produce a Polka album? If Tejano was derived from Polka that doesn't make Tejano musicians Polka musicians. It seems that categorizing her as a Polka musician is a bit of a stretch. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with Mufka here. Norteno is clearly just polka played with Mexican instrumentation, but Tejano is different enough that classifying Tejano as a form of polka is inaccurate.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh you guys love to team up on me, well I don't really care haha AJona1992 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, she has recorded her second album in "polka" so ha! source: "Selena Remembered" VHS. hahaha I win AGAIN ahhahaha AJona1992 (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:1970s singers

I believe this category should be brought back (1) Selena released her first single entitled "Feelings" in 1979 and (2) Selena began singing live in concerts beginning the late 1970s. (Source: Selena Remembered). AJona1992 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding "footnotes" instead of sources

I would like to add "footnotes" to replace ciations that can't be sourced in this article. For more about what I am trying to say please visit this link AJona1992 (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I'm not sure why a new article at Death of Selena has been created. This article is only 35.5 kb, and Death of Selena is about 9 kb. Why do we need it to be separate? There are some "Death of..." articles, but as far as I can tell, they have been created when the main article is already long. Some examples: Michael Jackson (main article 178 kb), Adolf Hitler (243 kb), Joseph Smith, Jr. (165 kb). Is there any need to spin this one out? Apart from anything else, the new article contains a whole lot of unsourced material, which (hopefully) would not have been allowed into a featured article.--BelovedFreak 21:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to merge. The "Death" section here LACKS information that the new article has. (AJona1992) 67.189.173.65 (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, merging that article here would mean that any new information in that article would be added here. Is there any reason why the information can't be here, in the main article? Why does it need to be in a separate article?

However, as I said, a great deal of the information there is unsourced and can be removed at any time, so I suggest you add some sources to the time line, or it will be removed.--BelovedFreak 08:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything that is UNSOURCED is TRUE due to wikipedias lame rules we can't add that the information given was from MAGAZINES and SPECIALS that AIR EVERY year. Oh well I can care LESS that this article gets taken away from its FA status because this article LACKS INFORMATION this article is like a basics article on Selena. I want to ADD MORE with SOURCES but people on wikipedia just dislike HER and ME to the point that I can't do shit here so oh well that's why I always get banned or something like that. Also YOU need to know that YOU should NEVER threaten me EVER because I don't play fair nor do I back down from ANYONE as you can tell on my old talk page. I know theres rules and stuff like that but once you cross me I can be just as mean as anyone maybe even worse *laughs to the floor OUT LOUD*. AJona1992 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It sounds like you have a lot of reliable sources available, so if you want to include the information, cite it to those reliable sources.

You still haven't given a reason why there needs to be a separate article about her death. Why can't the relevant information be included in the main article?--BelovedFreak 16:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before all information is from magazines (not on the internet) and TV specials (not on the internet) ok so what do you want me to do then?

The "Death of Selena" shouldn't be merged because it gives vital TRUTH information about her death, the reason why I didn't include it in this article is because that this article is a FA and it will only get reverted. So again, what do you want me to do? I can't do ANYTHING here because everyone disagree with me and my actions. AJona1992 (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If the information gets reverted, it maybe because you're not following an important policy or guideline, which in this case could be WP:V. Magazines and television shows can be cited as reliable sources. Articles often have sources that aren't on the internet (books, newspapers etc.) If you need help with that, just ask. Also, you can have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Featured articles have very high standards which is why some of your edits may have been reverted in the past, and why I started the WP:FAR. Not because people are out to get you, or don't like you, or don't like Selena, but because we want the article to stay at a high standard, and meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The fact that your edits about her death were not accepted in Selena does not mean that you should create a separate article to put them in. That would be a POV fork, and is not acceptable. Like I said before, other articles about famous people who have died do have "spinout" articles just about their death, but in those cases, the articles are very large and the death section would make it a lot larger. This is not the case here. Please don't readd the unsourced material to that article. I appreciate that you want to work on it, but it's still in the history, and you know how to use sandboxes in your userspace. If you have the sources for the information, but are not sure how to add them, please let me know.--BelovedFreak 08:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know how to cite those unsourced information that is only given in magazines and TV special so if you can help me learn how to I would be much appreciated. I never worked in the "Death" section on this article, I felt that Selena's death was the main reason on how Selena's legacy still flurish today so it was a great idea to me. I use sandboxes a lot before I create a new article because I like that I can work on it and no one can delete or remove anything. AJona1992 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Merge not deserve its own article, is the same information. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Third opinion: Merge the articles as best as you can. The death article seems to be a memorial to Selena, which is unacceptable. I see no reason why Wikipedia needs a to-the-minute account of Selena's death. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've redirected the article to Selena, I can't see any relevant info that should be included that isn't already in the death section of this article. If others disagree and want to salvage any of it, it's in the history of Death of Selena.--BelovedFreak 09:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? It's not a Memorial! I was going by the way other death topics had theirs, like really? No wonder your username here is annoying LOLZ BTW it really suits you! hahaha AJona1992 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://ezinearticles.com/?Selena:-A-Life-Remembered-%28Part-1%29&id=345947. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously all I see is "blah blah blah blah" lolz its so funny to see you here again lolz nice seeing you. AJona1992 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}}

Can someone remove "Dreaming of You" sold more than 400,000 copies in its first week beating Mariah Carey's record for the most sold album in a week and also outperforming that weeks top charters Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson and Monica, I can't vertify the book source, the other Ajona edit after that is fine. Thanks Secret ^account 20:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, you want that line removed because you don't have the source? Aren't old issues of Rolling Stone available in the library? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't verify if the book exists or not [1], anyways that statement doesn't make any sense, what record did she break, etc. I have a source that it sold 330,000 copies not 400,000+ copies, and that it debut in number one in Billboard 200 for a week so mention that. Secret ^account 21:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh it's a Magazine, I got access to the Rolling Stones archives, for a music project I abandoned, just checked the magazine, it didn't break any record of any kind and while it did said it sold 400,000 records it seems like it's for the year not the week. Secret ^account 21:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, now that you've verified what sources say, please indicate below exactly how the text should appear, wikimarkup and all, and I can paste it in. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Dreaming of You" sold more than 330,000 copies in its first week, Secret ^account 22:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, that bit about Billboard 200 is already stated in the first sentence of the paragraph. Seems redundant to say it again in the middle. Also, "Dreaming of You" is both a song and an album, as far as I can tell from reading the paragraph. I assume you mean the album, Dreaming of You? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The album and I edited it. Secret ^account 22:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can someone remove the portals from the external links section, and fix citation 12 to work WP:MOS#ALLCAPS and the date when the article was published April 16, 1997. Secret ^account 04:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncontroversial. Done. Courcelles 08:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

JW category

Inclusion of Selena in the Category Category:American Jehovah's Witnesses is against the criteria for inclusion in categories about people. Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#General states: "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest." Though there is no contention about whether Selena was raised as a JW, there seems to be no indication that her being a JW has any relevance to her notability, which is a very explicit criterion for inclusion in categories about people. Selena being raised as a JW (particularly without any indication that she was involved with the religion in her adult life) simply does not satisfy that criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well she died, as you can tell, at age 23 she went to church every single day. So if that doesn't qualify for her to be on that category is just wrong because that's her religion and she practice it as well. AJona1992 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose and criteria of Wikipedia categories about people. Removing someone from such a category is not a statement claiming that they are not sincere members of a particular religion. It is an indication that they are not notable for that membership. Selena is notable for reasons other than her religion. If she were not notable for other reasons, we simply wouldn't know about her religion. That is the criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So... Prince and Mickey Spillane were notable for their membership (well, primarily, at least) and Selena can't be in the category? Exactly who is notable for just being a Jehovah's Witness and nothing else? I think you are reading the guideline criteria far too literally. See WP:IAR as well... Doc9871 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I highly agree with Doc here are you just only picking people you want to put in the category? AJona1992 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

On this page under "Religion", it states: "The requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories are strictly enforced. For a dead person, there must be a verified general consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." Both Prince (living) and Mickey Spillane (deceased) have one reference each that they are a Jehovah's Witness. Lark Voorhees from Saved By the Bell has no reference, and this could be considered a BLP violation without one. Selena has a reliable reference that she was raised a JW, and I see no reason whatsover why she can't be included in this category. It is not remotely against policy for her to be there... Doc9871 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement from the guideline regarding persons who have died does not mean that the principle no longer applies. Prince's conversion to the JW religion was notable because it was specifically reported on in reliable sources rather than simply mentioned as a side point in passing. If there are notable sources that have reported specifically on Selena being a Witness, then they can be cited in the article and the category would be appropriate. However, if notable sources simply happen to briefly mention someone's religion, that can go in the article but it doesn't quality for the category. Feel free to remove the reference to Spillane if there are not notable sources indicating that his being a JW has any relevance to his notability. I removed the category for those articles where it seemed very clear that the person's membership of the religion has not been covered in any meaningful way by reliable sources rather than only a brief mention or in some cases no mention at all. I left it on some articles that I was less sure about, but that does not constitute endorsement of the category for all articles from which I did not remove the category.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The accusation that I am simply 'picking people I want in the category' on some hypothetical basis other than the rules for categories about people is laughable, and I have no idea what you imagine my criteria to be.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I find your "argument" to include Prince and not the others more than slightly ridiculous. What guideline are you reading that states, "if notable sources simply happen to briefly mention someone's religion, that can go in the article but it doesn't quality for the category"? You simply contradict yourself by making an "exception" for Prince, while "Selena is notable for reasons other than her religion. If she were not notable for other reasons, we simply wouldn't know about her religion. That is the criteria." Prince is not notable for other reasons?! How about Jerry Hairston, Jr. - not famous for being a baseball player before a JW? Policy trumps guidelines, and WP:IAR is a policy. There is nothing against policy to keep Prince in and Selena out, and I recommend you show some concrete support in the way of diffs to guideline and policy references for what you're claiming about this (and, really, all) categories. I think there is a possible POV issue here, that you're making this up as you go along, and that one editor doesn't get to "control" what does or doesn't go in a category. That's why we have WP:CONSENSUS, and so far 2 editors want her in and 1 wants her out. Start citing, please... Doc9871 (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I grow tired of your poor argumentation. Your suggestion that 'Ignore all rules' applies is utterly ridiculous, being based on a tenuous subjective contrivance that removing Selena from a category "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia"; rather, you want to apply 'Ignore all rules' simply because you don't like the guideline. I'm not sure what you're on about regarding Hairston, as I never made any attempt to rank anything notable about him in order of importance at all—I simply didn't edit that article because it was unclear whether his becoming a JW had had any impact on his career, however if there was no notable change reported, he can also be removed from the category.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

After re-reading (a few times) your earlier response questioning whether "Prince is not notable for other reasons?!" I think I now understand your abstruse conclusion wherein you failed to correctly interpret what I wrote. You seem to have taken my statement that "Selena is notable for reasons other than her religion" as some kind of suggestion that the others are only notable for their religion, which from the context is clearly not what I meant at all. The point is that sources indicate notability about Prince for other things (clearly), and also for his conversion to the JW religion, whereas sources do not seem to indicate that Selena's membership of the JW religion is particularly significant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - The source provided states, "Though inactive Jehovah's Witnesses, the Quintanilla family ascribe to the principles of the religion which prohibits birthday fanfare, said Bert Quintanilla, Selena's uncle and marketing director of the family-owned Q Productions." The "inactive" part isn't an issue, I hope... Doc9871 (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That quote says nothing at all about Selena personally, but their inactivity in the religion does make wanting inclusion in the category just that bit more tenuous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, if you can have Prince and the girl from Saved By the Bell, you can have Selena. If you want to make it only church leaders who are notable for being JW's it's all or nothing... Doc9871 (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who 'the girl from Save By the Bell' is. However, as stated previously, those articles that I did not edit do not constitute specific endorsement for those people remaining in the category. If other people are in the category who also do not meet the criteria, they can also be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Notability for category

Is Selena's JW membership notable enough for inclusion in category Category:American Jehovah's Witnesses per criteria 4 at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#General?

See Talk section above.Jeffro77 (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A Google search of "Selena Jehovah's Witness" turns up a few hits[2]. One of the most notable things about it concerning her tragic death is that her father refused to allow her a blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs... Doc9871 (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And, "The New York Times covered her death with a front-page story, as did Texas major dailies. Six hundred persons attended her private Jehovah's Witness funeral. More than 30,000 viewed her casket at the Bayfront Plaza Convention Center in Corpus Christi."[3]. I would think it's notable based on that alone... Doc9871 (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Your first link to the Google search results doesn't seem to constitute reliable sources, but seems to be chiefly forum sites and other that list people as Witnesses with only very tenuous connections to the religion.

Regarding your second link, no one is contending that Selena did not profess to be a JW (although in actuality "Selena was not an official member of the sect"[4]), only that her religion is not "specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity" which is the criterion for inclusion in the category. The fact that Selena had a JW funeral is no more notable than it would be for any celebrity of any religion to have a particular denominational funeral service, but the religious affiliation of other people is not automatically categorised on such a basis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, Selena did receive a blood transfusion, to which her father objected after the event. She didn't refuse a transfusion, and didn't die as a result of not receiving a blood transfusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think removing this category is like removing "Category:Mexican Americans" from Selena, that's her religion, and yes I read what you guys were talking about, but she, like Doc has said above, has practice that religion she never celebrated her birthday, and the blood transfusions was thought to be true but after VH1 released a special about her regarding her death, she was given one anyway. I mean if another celebrity was a Christian and practice that religion why remove it from their article? AJona1992 (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Your statement indicates that you either do not understand, or are deliberately ignoring, the very clear criteria at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#General.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest." - which is not celebrating her own birthday, she went to church every day. After her death, her father did not approve of blood transfusions due to their religion. I mean am I missing something out? I just read the guidelines and rules 2-4 is not an issue with what we are talking about since (1) we have sources that back up our claims, (2) this is about a religion not a country, (3) this is not going out of context. So I believe you are worrying about the 4th criteria. AJona1992 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For a start, JWs don't go to church "every day". They have two (formerly three) meetings for worship each week. I have seen no source that says Selena was officially a member of the religion, and I have seen several sources that say she was not officially a member but simply from a family of inactive JWs. Her informal attachment to the religion through her family is insufficient for inclusion in the category per the criteria already stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I am not a JW to know about that and second of all practicing a religion does not need a "you have to be an official member" what? so is JW the only religion that you have to be a member in order to be classified as a JW? Third of all how would you know if her family is not or still is a JW after Selena's death? I don't even know if they are, and its not our business to even know unless they spoked about and want people to know. AJona1992 (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not contending that a person can't make some kind of nominal self-identification for a religion without being a formal member. What I am saying is that the verifiability requirements for the purposes of the category has not been met. Additionally, the notability requirement for inclusion in the category is also not met. The sources available online are pretty clear that her family were inactive JWs and that Selena was not an official member. If they did not want people to know and did not speak about it, then it would fail the criteria for notability anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the evidence presented, I would be inclined to not use the category. The one question I do have however is regarding the "official/unofficial" matter. I don't "know" that I, who am not currently officially registered as a member of my local Catholic parish, having moved recently, qualify as an "official" Catholic, even though I take part in Mass at least weekly. I don't know from what I've seen, but it might be possibly useful to know if Selena's blood transfusion was with or without her personal explicit consent, If it wasn't with her explicit consent or possibly prior instructions of some sort, then I wouldn't hold it as necessarily relevant. Even if it wasn't with consent, though, there might still be a question whether "inactive" but still potentially somewhat "observant" in some way people can be counted, provided that observation is itself verifiable in some way. I would like I said in the beginning lean against the category, based on what I know, but would be open to it if further verifiable information was presented to support her inclusion. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To satisfy the criteria in question, there would need to be some indication that Selena's religious beliefs are relevant to her notability and a verifiable reliable source indicating either a) a statement from Selena (not from someone else on her behalf) stating that she self-identified as a JW or b) a statement that she was officially a member. None of the criteria have been satisfied so far.

In regard to AJona1992's concern about alleged disparity about 'the girl from Saved By the Bell' (a TV program I didn't recognise), Lark Voorhies was specifically reported as breaking an acting contract because the role conflicted with her religious beliefs, which directly relates to her notability. The closest Selena seems to come to her (informal) religious beliefs relating to her notability is that her father objected to a blood transfusion after the event.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The blood transfusions were done on her to save her life by that time she unconscious as medics tried to revived her. After the fact her father did not approved of it due to their religion. Selena never mentioned that she was JW her family and quiz shows on MTV Tres has cited her religion to be JW. AJona1992 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source indicating that Selena self-identified as JW or that she was officially a member, the criteria are not met. In case Selena's father becomes notable enough for his own article, it would be appropriate to place him in the category.

In regard to John Carter's concern about official membership. If John Carter self-identifies as Catholic (and it related to his notability), that would satisfy the criteria for the category; in the absence of such self-identification, we would need an indication of official membership.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to say that I did find an at least marginally RS, Entertainment Weekly, which said that Selena did "embrace" (that's the word used) the JW faith. Whether that is sufficient, I don't know. And there could be, I suppose, an argument made that the fact that her funeral was presided over by a JW, and that funeral, and her related early death, have contributed greatly to whatever evidence of notability there may be after her death. I am the first to acknowledge that the funeral being presided over by a JW is at best tangentially related to her notability per se, but as it is related to her early death, which has contributed to her post-mortem popularity, it might, barely, be relevant. If someone has a full-length biography of her (if there is one), that might be a very useful source to use to help determine this matter. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There's numerous specials on her (see filmography) but theres way more than listed. None of those specials talk about her JW though that's why I didn't use them as a reference. AJona1992 (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood, this is probably a somewhat minor point, and I'm not faulting anyone for not including it. For what little it might be worth, Slate here says that she shortly prior to her death taken up Bible study which, according to this article a JW taught, but this article indicates that Selena's professional work as a musician might have been unacceptable to the JWs. This book says early in her career she refused to sing songs which ran contrary to her faith, but that later in her career JW beliefs became less important to her. I'm still leaning against the categorization, but think some of the material might be relevant enough for mention in the article. I don't know how much though. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The available sources seem to support the view that Selena's father could be added to the category (if he were notable enough to merit an article), based on the funeral and his (post-facto) objection to a blood transfusion. A movie was made about Selena's life and it did not mention her religion, suggesting her connection to the JW religion through her family did not have a significant bearing on her notability. As previously stated, the article can cite sources, such as those mentioned by John Carter, that mention her informal religious affiliation. However, there simply does not appear to be sufficient support for adding Selena to the category based on the criteria for categories about people.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Selena's father has a page Abraham Quintanilla, Jr. and if you feel that she doesn't need to be on that category even though sources says she was a JW and practice it then fine by me. AJona1992 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The criteria are clear, and you are taking this far too personally. I haven't seen any sources saying she personally identified as a JW beyond her family's affiliation with the religion. Do you have any source in which Selena personally self-identified as a JW?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You can drop this now. AJona1992 (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Selena a Latino Idol

These sources talks about Selena being a role model and idol to Latinos should there be a new sub section for this or is it too small for inclusion? AJona1992 (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• March 26, 2005
• August 17, 2002

Also this is kind of creepy, but should it be included in this article? It talks about Selena fans scraping her blood off the floors and windows of the hotel she was shot in. AJona1992 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Spin Magazine August 1995 issue

Howard Stern's "apology"

Stern did not apologise in his on-air statement in Spanish. He even said on the air that it was in no way an apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.32.5 (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Save your breath, no one is going to edit the article, because people just don't want to expand it to it's fullest, even if the information can be useful in the article, because it's a "FA", which all I see is two letters, but others see it as something special. LOLZ, AJona1992 (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy expansion

I have expanded this section located here User:AJona1992/sandbox#Legacy, can it be moved to the article or are there current problems with it? AJona1992 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

JW category #2

Although I didn't add this category back because of Jeffro77's complains about it. However, your edit summary states that her father objected the blood transfusions. The doctors at Memorial Hospital did perform a BT without her or her father's consent. Secondly, her father later announced that he didn't want them to perform a BT on her which her father had said in an interview for TV Y Novelas magazine. Just to let you know, AJona1992 (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been covered previously. Selena's father objected to the blood transfusion after the event, but it is irrelevant to the scope of whether Selena was herself notable as a JW.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I would disagree that she is not notable as a JW, although she was raised as a JW until she later perform acts that aren't JW-like, for example: her choice of clothing. I only brought this up for others to know. AJona1992 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you agree. What matters is whether there are sources supporting your opinion that her activities as a JW are notable. There are not. Anyone interested can read the other lengthy threads already present at this page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And it surely doesn't matter if you disagree either. I can be the biggest ass hole and keep adding this category because numerous of books spot that she was a JW point blank. I came here and wanting to discuss this as a civilized individual but coming at me "it doesn't matter whether you agree" - is completely wrong, if more people disagree with that rule then the rule wouldn't stand a chance to be there any more and you can't do anything about it ha! AJona1992 (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems you have again missed the point. The sources do not indicate that being a JW is relevant to her notability. There would need to be sources that discuss how her religion is relevant to her notability, not simply mention her religion in passing. It doesn't matter whether you (or others) agree, because you are ignoring the criteria that are explicitly stated for inclusion in categories about people. That is all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you were to intentionally "be the biggest ass hole and keep adding this category", it would be clear indication of disruptive editing, and would therefore be inadvisable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If the majority of the contributors of Wikipedia disagrees with a rule, the rule will be turned over and there's nothing you can do about it, unless the majority agrees with it. Secondly, I have nothing else to discuss with you so go feed your invisible pink unicorn, LOLZ! AJona1992 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So what? The majority doesn't agree, so your hypothetical contention is irrelevant. Please just stop arguing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Arguing with you.? Whatever, I know that they agree but I'm telling you that if they all disagree then that rule will no longer apply. Go lecture someone who will care and stop trolling. AJona1992 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You started this section even though you are fully aware that editors generally agree with the guidelines I have cited for inclusion in categories about people. It was unnecessary to say anything, and though you later claimed it was "for others to know", your initial comment was specifically directed to me. So, if anyone is 'trolling'... Just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy-editing request

Can anyone help me by c/e Selena Sandbox? Thanks, I need all the help possible, AJona1992 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

FAR

Before I nominate the article for WP:FAR, I would like to discuss the issues within the article and the issues that the article lacks.

• Obviously the article was written by a fan who really didn't know her entire career and only added basic information (early life, early LPs, emerging years, success, death, and legacy). However, the article is not broad in its coverage it doesn't state any of the aspects on Selena's life.

Here are some pointers of missing content in the article that have all their notability established from the same book that was used in this article that had helped the article pass two FA nominations:

1971–1989: Early life and career beginnings

The article fails to discuss that doctors believed Selena was a tumor and that Selena's mother had needed it removed. But went to see a second doctor and was told she was pregnant. I believe that this should be told in the article as it has been mentioned in books, magazines, newspapers, and in every single documentary of Selena since 1995. The article also lacks about how Selena got into the music world, how her father Abraham Quintanilla, Jr. was strict when it came to his kids in music, religious beliefs and personal when he was Selena's manager. The article fails to say what "Los Dinos" means in Italian and Abraham's wisdom that helped the band prosper, did you know they wanted to quit? The article doesn't talk about how Selena was discriminated because she was a female singer in a male-dominate music by Freddie Records and other fans of Tejano music. She was also booed off stage and had food thrown at her because she was a female. Selena had to learn Spanish phonetically (Selena's first language was English, so how did she knew Spanish?) The article talks about The New Girl in Town being released in 1985, but wasn't it pulled off shelves because of copyright control? and didn't the album helped Selena become musical guest on the Johnny Canales Show in 1985? - which was her break? Where in the article does it state that after Selena had graduated that she had applied to take college courses through correspondence from a California school, that she was accepted in December 1990? - this was why she wanted to do fashion (Selena Etc.) Why doesn't the article speak about her salary from Coca-Cola? why doesn't it say that she was asked by beer commercials (and how that Tejano artists can only get beer commercials to sponsor them, because the genre wasn't popular?) and that her father didn't want that? Oh and a HUGE ONE, where in the article does it say how Abraham wanted "Selena y Los Dinos" to have a clean image? What about Chris Perez, he was in a Rock band before Los Dinos, where does it state that Selena had met him BEFORE he auditioned for the group? He was her husband.

1990–1993: Selena, Ven Conmigo, Entre a Mi Mundo and Grammy win

The article fails to discuss about "Contigo Quiero Estar" being Selena's FIRST charted song to appear on Billboard. How did Pete Astudillo and Joe ojeda join the group? Wait a mintue, didn't Selena and her father approach them (they were in a group together) and wanting them to open up for Selena? Then they joined with Selena y Los Dinos. It also fails to say that Astudillo was a back up dancer for Selena and that he did several duets with Selena on her albums, he also helped with writing the songs most of them #1 on Billboard Hot Latin Tracks. And where is this in the article? By 1990, Selena was a millionaire and became a spokesperson for the Texas Prevention Partnership, sponsored by the TCADA. Ok, Ven Conmigo is fine as it states ONE of the success but what about this? The album remained on Billboard's Regional Mexican Albums for fifty-six weeks, an unprecedented feat for a Tejano act. Damn what about the Tejano Movement in Texas that Selena helped boost album sales, bookings, and more? What about this statement The band also was motorizing Tejano music and making it assailable to younger audiences. Selena was the first Tejano recording artist to sign a major recording studio and brought other major studios to sign other Tejano singers? Selena helped OTHER Tejano singers sign with EMI Latin, oh and Selena was the FIRST artist to sign with that label! Next ---> Did you know the women who murdered Selena, Yolanda Saldivar hated her because Selena was winning all the awards at the Tejano Music Awards? And that Saldivar's friends convinced her to attend a San Antonio concert of Selena, and THAT'S when Saldivar approached Selena's father about opening a fan club and becoming a fan. Where is this in the article, that the "Selena Fan Club" went to be one of the largest fan club throughout the San Antonio-area? seems notable to me. This article also doesn't talk about Selena's signature songs like "Como La Flor" and "La Carcacha" from Entre a Mi Mundo (1992) - how else did Selena crossover to Mexico? She also broke the barrier for a Mexican American, in Mexico they dislike them because they were Americans! Why isn't this in the article? What about that Selena's father was threatening Selena that if she had married Chris Perez that he WOULD disband the group? Also how did the news of Selena's marriage surfaced? What about the famous press tour Selena had done in Mexico? It was featured in the 1997 film based on her life starring Jennifer Lopez. Selena was also the biggest Tejano act during this? And this? "Selena's husband, Chris Perez and co-designer for Selena's clothing, Martin Gomez, elaborated Selena's dream of opening a boutiques, whereas her father and siblings were worried that "Selena Etc." would be too hectic to Selena's growing schedule." Selena's BMW was stolen and dumped in the ocean, not in the article and notable. Around this time, Astudillo left the band, but why? In the article it doesn't state that nor does it say he left the group to peruse a solo career. It also doesn't state that Selena's record "Amor Prohibido" (1994) sold over 400,000 copies which was "unheard of" for a Tejano artist. A lot of barriers Selena broke, aren't even mentioned in this article! What about her appearance in Dos mujeres, un camino, it was worth 20 million dollars! And ---> Coca-Cola released a commemorative bottle in her honor to celebrate their five-year relationship, 4,900 bottles were distributed in Texas and New Mexico, by October 1994 the bottles were sold out. Did you know that Selena was given twenty-thousand dollars from Coca-Cola for just saying "I Like Coke"? Selena's image helped her to stay in Coca-Cola after the company fired other celebrities only keeping Selena for Coke, Elton John for Diet Coke and Christopher Cross for Sprite! It doesn't talk about Selena's perfume line and that it was stolen by Saldivar. What about in 1995, Selena became a billionaire?

Controversies

Ok, every entertainer has some, but why isn't Selena's controversies on the article? Did you know Saldivar was making up stories that Selena had cheated on her husband with her doctor and label partner? That Selena wasn't the "girl you knew she was"? That Selena had kept a diary that Saldivar stated had notes about her fantasies, love dept with her husband, how "evil" her father was, and unreleased song lyrics. THESE ALL were featured on News Channels all over the United States! Did you know that her attorney had went to Mexico (where Saldivar confessed of the whereabouts) to retrieve the diary. All of this was thought to release Saldivar from prison! When he got there, guess what? I mean idk I thought it would be in the article! Where is it? Did you know that she was lying, her attorney took himself off as a defense for Saldivar because of this! Did you know that fans had thought Saldivar was a lesbian lover of Selena, which she stated wasn't true? Did you know that she told news channels that Selena had love triangles? All of which were lies? Did you know that Globe publicized the autopsy pictures of Selena without permission? Did you know that her father sued them? What about the "Abraham Quintanilla Jr vs. Maria Celeste" case?

Artistry, stage/charisma, public image, products/endorsements, and her philanthropy sections are ALL missing! These are all important to the article.

Thoughts? AJona1992 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note Also note that Selena was just removed from WikiProject Women's History because it fails to identifies criteria for inclusion. If the article was allowed to be edited and expanded, this wouldn't have happened. As Selena was trail blazing for female artists, was told she will never be anything because she was a female, had to deal with male coliseum, had broken female barriers in the music world, and other notable barriers that Selena had broke aren't in the article, which made the article to be removed from the project. AJona1992 (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  It was removed because "A major goal of WikiProject Women's History is to incorporate the perspective of women's history in overview articles of historical periods or pre-1950 events which may currently lack such coverage and "The biography of a woman born after 1950 may be included only if she has exceptional and verifiable historic significance.", Selena is not Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth II. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither is Yolanda Saldivar, Selena Gomez, Rihanna, Jennifer Lopez and Lady Gaga who are in the scope. AJona1992 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You, or anyone, is welcome to remove the project if the subject is not within scope. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that, I'm not part of the project just to remove banners like that. AJona1992 (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, all the biographies listed above are outside the scope of the Women's History project. We're not even sure about adopting Christine Lagarde. We're trying to de-banner, but sometimes when we do, other editors put the banner back (usually not project members). You'll be doing us a great favor if you see articles that clearly are outside scope and de-banner them; or if you're not sure, drop at note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:WHPP it is included. I'll sure will thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have been randomly selected to provide a comment on this but I'm afraid I can't work out exactly what it is I am supposed to comment on. Could someone provide a brief summary of what responders to the RfC are to comment on? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh AJona what now, u should be banned from any Selena article as you clearly have a huge bias against this article for years now. It doesn't need to go into great detail, and most of the stuff you mentioned are very trivial. It needs to be covered by reliable sources which your television documenturies I can't tell if they are reliable sources or not, if you could find those newspaper sources or w.e why can't you fix them. Some of your concerns were already mentioned in the article but was removed because I wasn't active enough to take care of the article for vandalism and what not. I consider your concerns moot. Secret ^account 06:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe Alex was talking to me, I'll deal with you after. Alex, the article fails to be broad in its coverage, if you had read the the whole thing you've know why I nominated the article. To Secret, I don't have nothing against you at all! However, why can't I be WP:Bold on Selena? If there are fixes that should be made why not add them? BTW the SAME damn book you used on the article is where I got all that information. They are all notable, no trivial is in there. I see the same info on other FA artists articles, so why can't it be on Selena? Because you don't want to loose your FA status? Anyways, glad to see your back, however, I shouldn't be banned from Selena related articles, heck, I got Amor Prohibido (song) and Si Una Vez up to GA status, I expanded all her Amor Prohibido singles to B-Class. So please quite and let this review be held. Anyways I am only doing this because it fails WP:PERFECT. Gratts, AJona1992 (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have no experience with selection of FAs and no knowledge of Selena or Latin music. That said, I do think it would be better to work on improving the article rather than vying to have its FA status revoked. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cautious Keep. I've been selected through the Wiki random process to comment on this RfC. After studying the text, the sources and what's been discussed so far, I find the article worthy, in general, of its Featured status. I also think that there are some minor items that need to be fixed: Fan-like sentences (e.g. "Their efforts at spreading their names and talents paid off") must be amended; release date (1997) for the Jennifer Lopez biopic must be included, while one of the sources ("Etc") cited for that does not seem to carry relevant content; Selena had a "business relationship" with Coca Cola -or, better yet, a "collaboration"; etc. But, in sum, no Wikipedia article needs to be perfect! (We do take special care for BLPs, though.) If I were obliged to judge its status as it is, I would cautiously keep it Featured.-The Gnome (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking you guys to remove its status, just allow me to add content with RS that the editor had used while nominating it for FA. I've been more discourage to add anything because of my reputation and that other editors feel that the article shouldn't be expanded or written like other artists articles (Beyoncé Knowles) , so if I had the ok to add such content from RS I'll do so and not bring any issues up at WP:FAR. AJona1992 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay so who is saying you're not allowed to add new content per your suggestions above? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and boldly do what you honestly believe must be done! (And then be prepared for an avalanche of criticism!)-The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well everyone who edits the article or monitors it believe that none of the information (that I risen) should be added onto the article because its already an "FA". My English isn't too good, even though I am a native speaker, and when I do add content they always revert it even if its a reliable source like Billboard. AJona1992 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. RFCs are usually made when the people on a talk page are unable to come to consensus about a specific single point of controversy. This RFC, by contrast, seems to be more of a request for a peer-review, or (more accurately) a mini-FAR before a FAR. In my opinion this RFC should be closed, and any of the article's supposed shortcomings can be dealt with by those who watch this talkpage. Afterwards, if AJona1992 is convinced at the article no longer meets FA status, he/she should nominate the article at FAR. But reviewing the completeness of entire article, or examining dozens of purported weaknesses, is outside the scope of a single RFC, in my opinion. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'll also note that articles should still be improved where possible, even if the article is featured. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a guy, and secondly I was told to put the article for RFC. I'll start to improve what needs to be done since the majority here agrees with me. AJona1992 (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion expansion made by AJona1992

I went WP:BOLD on the article per discussion above. However, my English is not very good, even though I am a native speaker. I am bringing up this discussion to talk about improvements such as grammar fixes, prose, and other fixes that need to be made to keep the article an FA status. The reason why I went bold on this article and expanded it to its fullest (content) was because, I believed the article could have been expanded, it was only at 40,000 bytes when I started it. The article had only basic information and not an impressive overall article on Selena, who had done way more then what the old revision stated. Since I will be away for a month on vacation, please, if you do spot anything that needs to be fix, please addressed them. Thank you, AJona1992 (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Billionaire claim

Going through the article (which is rife with problems), I noticed the claim that Selena supposedly became a billionaire in 1995. This claim attributed to an episode of 20/20. Despite being sourced, I find this claim rather dubious. Selena is/was a very popular act and I don't doubt she probably became a millionaire at some point, but I can't recall her ever being named on any billionaire entertainers list or anything of that nature. Unless another source that can actually be verified can be found to back this up, I believe this claim should be removed. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The source came from the Como La Flor book. I doubt she was a billionaire however, it said so in the book. AJona1992 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If this claim was from a book, it should be attributed to the book and not a television show. That said, I really see no reason to even mention the fact about her finances - it has nothing to do with her notability. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Both the episode and book state she was a billionaire. I don't mind giving you a link to the episode where it says it if you would like? If you think it shouldn't be in the article then I will agree. AJona1992 (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I just watched the 20/20 episode on YouTube and it said, "in the last year of her life, she became a millionaire" (it's at around 2:25). As such, I am going to remove this claim as it is attributed to this show. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I have never seen so many spelling/grammatical errors in one Wikipedia article...

For God's sake, somebody please fix them. I am far too lazy, not to mention overwhelmed by the vast number of errors. Please, somebody who has a lot of patience, clean this article up. It's a shame to call this a "featured" article.

71.204.165.254 (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

Just for the record: I can't perceive anything close to an "overwhelming" or "vast" number of spelling or grammatical errors, so the reason I'm saying the above is not mere laziness. I don't have the slightest idea what exactly you are finding so glaringly incorrect, so you'll have to become active on your own. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I didn't read the lower sections of the article. There are passages that need copyediting quite bad, admittedly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Just the lower sections?! Wow, a person with a distinctively non-English speaking country name objecting they can't see the glaring errors! ("Florian" is a given name which has currency only in Germany). Well, here's the most awful error I've seen so far: "Selena's death reactions" for "Reactions to Selena's death". No native would think to say that. As I alluded to in the edit summary when I corrected this, certain errors are so unexpected even from second language speakers that I suspect they are computer translations (many articles at Wikipedia have aroused this suspicion in me).

I take great offense at the irrelevance of your knee jerk defense, that a crappy article which had not received the "bold editing" it so desperately needed could still be deemed an example of the best of Wikipedia. At your User page, you make explicit you're an ESL (I am applying that term with jocularly loose grammar). Even though you have a superb command of English, you might not be the person to vouch for the quality of this prose. (I also am alert to the possibility that, unlike me, the original complainant is not a native speaker either.) See my additional comment below within this section. Hurmata (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone request it at WP:GOCE? I already requested three Selena-related pages there which is the limit. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Right on, 71.204.165.254! (Usually, I disdain unregistered users, but you made a complaint that is very important to make here.) How did this article get to be Featured Article? And by the way, when? I thought clicking on the gold star would link to specifics of the awarding of this article, but no. Anyway, the entire writing of this article is as if done by teenagers who are learning composition. Ignorance of set phrases; staccato arrangement of information (awkward like the walk of a toddler); etc. One can learn what I'm referring to by inspecting the changes I just made. The notion that quality of content and quality of prose are among the criteria for Featured Article is so naive. This is at least the second outrageous counterexample I've seen. Hurmata (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The article was passed back in 2006, of course the article has changed ever since. It is among the most traffic article in enWP. Also please refrain from making attacks on this talk page of Selena. If you find mistakes, please clean it up. The article is currently being reviewed. Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This is to follow up my commments within the last hour in this section. In regard to the writing being quite undereducated, this article is by no means typical of the quality of Wikipedia articles, even of just entertainer biographies. I have already mentioned the ignorant prose style. But it's also lacking more directly in a sense of the responsibilities that are specifically the priorities at Wikipedia, when it comes to conscious attention to validity. Notice I added the Unreferenced tag. This article is full of sweeping, opinionated statements that in a normal article would have attracted many gentle admonitions to supply a source. This applies to music criticism judgements, sociological judgements, etc. This article sticks out like a sore thumb for its violation of WP standards. Hurmata (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the article is referenced (not referenced enough I'll say). Per WP:LEAD the lead section does not need to be sourced, unless it is not currently in the article body. Therefore, I removed the tag because it is a FA, and having tags placed, that clearly are not right, is not a good thing. Like I told you on your talk page, if you found something wrong then fix it. Why come on the talk page to bash editors and myself who expanded the article? This is not a WP:FORUM to just talk down to others instead of improving the article. Thirdly, please do not attack the consensus that passed the article to FA status. The previous version (as stated above this talk page) was found FA-worthy. Therefore, the current version needs criticism not criticism to editors who edit the article. Lastly, if you are going to continue to WP:NPA others then I'll just simply bring an admin to help defuse this. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence

Selena had to face male coliseum in traditional barriers in the Latin music world.

This sentence makes no sense at all. A coliseum is an amphitheatre. The grammar also seems wrong. I can guess what the sentence is supposed to say, but I have no idea what coliseum is supposed to stand for, therefore I hesitate to try and correct it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for the help, User:Arno Matthias. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the link of the episode (9:13) where it states this. However, I just now know that the newspaper print is what I mistakenly written for. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The word that was mistaken for "coliseum" is "chauvinism". Gr8white (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but is it different from the current statement "male opposition"? If so, I'll just replace it with "chauvinism". Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is, no need to change it. Gr8white (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

what did Selena look like? any chance of a decent pic?

CorvetteZ51 (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

correct pronunciation

The name "Selena" may be pronounced "seLAYnah" in Spanish but she grew up speaking English and learned Spanish only later in her life. I have personal knowledge that she pronounced it "seLEEna" and as an example listen to this interview where the host Johnny Canales consistently her father clearly pronounces it that way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWBfWqKHHZo Gr8white (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Gr8white (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This still needs a pronunciation visible on the lead as it once was. I'm not sure how to tweak the words though. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 06:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I added the IPA pronunciation and respelling according to the conventions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key. Gr8white (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the correct one. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:ConcertAustinTexas945.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ConcertAustinTexas945.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 11 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Finale1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Finale1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Expansion Part 2

I just completed one-in-half days of finding WP:RS to add into the article since IPs and users alike were complaining about the quality of the article. Now that I just completed adding more sources, the next issue is prose and overall grammar errors. The article is currently up for a peer review and simultaneously nominated at WP:GOCE/REQ for copy-editing. Hopefully soon the article can be back to its FA status, even though no one, surprisingly, has brought this attention to WP:FAR (besides my failed attempts) :). If there are more claims or sentences that needs a better quality RS or a source please note them below here and I'll get to them asap. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This sentence (found in the beginning of the last paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena#1990.E2.80.931993:_Selena.2C_Ven_Conmigo.2C_Entre_a_Mi_Mundo_and_Grammy_win) seems oddly structured to me:

"After Selena's Grammy win, becoming a recipient of several accolades, signing a sponsorship tour with Coca-Cola, dominating the Latin music charts and expanding the "Tejano Music Movement" across the United States, EMI Latin felt that the moment was right for Selena to release a crossover album."

I think it would read better like this:

"After Selena won a Grammy, became a recipient of several accolades, signed a sponsorship tour with Coca-Cola, and dominated the Latin music charts while expanding the "Tejano Music Movement" across the United States, EMI Latin felt that the moment was right for Selena to release a crossover album." PrintedScholar (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed thanks for you're suggestions. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the Featured Article status should be questioned. Fall 2011

I recognize that this issue was previously discussed in July, under the title, FAR. But it seems to have gained more traction since then.

The Featured Article was awarded five years ago, which is quite a long time. It would not be surprising if the flaws it has in fall 2011 have accumulated since then.

I'll lead off by pointing out the bloatedness. Pay particular attention to the lead. The lead violates policy by its length. This lead should only be 1/4 to 1/3 it current length.

The article is way too long, absurdly so. The subject inherently does not merit such a length. Probably overzealous fans are to blame. All Selena was was a bestselling entertainer. She was not a Jimi Hendrix, a major innovator. He's a strong comparison to Selena because his time as a big name performer was similarly brief and he lived only four years longer than Selena. Hendrix was an Evariste Galois of mass culture; Selena was not. Hurmata (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

One of many bizarre and/or atrocious passages: "While teaching, Selena's brother, A.B. to play the guitar, Selena came in the room and began to sing. While doing so, Quintanilla Jr noticed Selena's pitch ...." To say "Quintinilla Jr" instead of "her father"? This writing that has been perpetrated on this article is just perverse. Of course, this sentence is also lousy because it implies Selena was the one doing the teaching. Hurmata (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not supposed to support every single statement in an article with 3 to 5 references. There is no need to source trivial and uncontroversial claims like "in year X Selena released album Y". The footnotes have too much information. This article is extremely difficult to edit because of the jungle of footnotes. The markup version seems to be more footnotes than content.

To the editor who has been complaining about my criticisms: pleased try to realize that the fact that this article is an official featured article dramatically changes what's appropriate to say and to criticize. A featured article deserves no patience with bad writing and policy deviations The editors who have been devoting themselves to this article collectively have no judgement on how to just tell a story, no judgement on citing sources, and terrible writing ability. Wikipedia is supposed to be a well written and informative. It's not very considerate of a person who insistently proclaims his writing skills are poor to do a lot of editing and "expanding" the article. And while proclaiming he wants improvement, he mischaracterizes all attacks on the bad writing as personal attacks. This article, in its state as of two days ago, is simply no good. Hurmata (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand you're frustrations on this article, but why can't you just state the issues instead of insulting editors? The FA version of the article is, no doubt in my mind, an extremely good well-written article. However, the article had lack the major aspects of the subject and was not broad in its coverage. Yes its true the article went through a FAR but I was determined to expand the article. The article is just as lengthy as Beyoncé Knowles, Mariah Carey and its lead is the same size as FA article Michael Jackson. You're only argument that is valid is the prose. Instead of complaining about it, fix it. I already had asked for permission to expand the article (if you had looked in the talk page) and you could see that the community agreed with my additions. This is the last time I will warn you. If you continue to insult others, I'll asked an admin to step in. Thanks Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody needs to ask permission to expand or contract an article. The "community who agreed with him" means "the handful of editors who happened to respond".

Let other editors be advised that over the last few days, AJona^Selena 4 ever^ HAS NOT responded to specific criticisms (that were directed at any words or anybody), has NEITHER defended specific passages NOR apologized for them. (In this regard, yesterday I created a section on the Talk page to call attention to a wrong headed revert by this editor).

There are many atrocious edits in this article — not poor, but atrocious. Any editor who took a big interest in this article over a long term, and still failed to notice them, has taken on a share of blame for not fixing them.

Now that AJona^Selena 4 ever^ has claimed for the fifth time or whatever that he's been insulted ("attacked personally"), let me distill the advice I've been giving. (1) The quality of this article is currently far below the average for Wikipedia. It is the messiest, worst written article I can remember seeing at Wikipedia. In the last 2 or 3 days, I've tried to improve it. (2) AJona^Selena 4 ever^ has said about himself (twice, maybe) that his writing ability is poor even though English is his native language. In that case, why is he confident that this article is in fine shape and needs only to become EVen BETTer? As I understand him, the only reason he solicited Featured Article Review was to attract more editors to work on expanding it to make it EVen BETTer. So AJona^Selena 4 ever^, stop doggedly reverting all my edits, like you did four hours after my last edit, falsely insinuating that *i* put "original research in the lead". You're a bad writer, let other people fix this article. Any original research in the lead was already there. (3) Next time he wants to disagree with criticism, don't just say "no it isn't!". Explain why some detail of Selena's childhood is not tedious trivia, or why particular references are fine as they are; etc. (4) Next time he yells "personal attacks!", he has a duty to explain how the criticism is not a criticism of words in the article or of conduct. (5) Criticizing an editor's conduct is not in itself a personal attack. Otherwise he would be guilty, because of what he complains about me. (6) If someone considers anything said in (1)–(5) to be a "personal attack", they deserve to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hurmata (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

In light of having been reverted with the justification, "per WP:LEAD every major aspect must be included. The lead had WP:OR problems", I elaborate on old points. This article is prohibitively hard to edit because it is bloated with trivia and with references. And not only are there too many references, many of the references are themselves bloated. Trivial data fields are filled. For newspaper and magazine articles, long headlines PLUS subheadlines are entered. With all these references that sprawl over three lines, this article is so hard to read. Deleting the trivia and ensuring that every major aspect is included in the lead can't be accomplished at once. And the revert restores a mass of terrible writing AND broken English. For example, the past perfect auxiliary ('had') was repeatedly used by editors for whom English is a second language. This mass revert was done by an editor who describes himself on this Talk page and in Featured Article Peer Review or FAR that he writes English badly. At the same time, he insists how much he wants to see improvement and how he has put in a request to WP:GOCE. This article doesn't need copy editing, it needs content editing. Hurmata (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try to rewrite the article again, removing some of the more trivial content and dubious content, while keeping some of Ajona edits. Secret ^account 16:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I really wish Hurmata could help out too. Like why just say things like that? Come and help :) Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I did that yesterday at 10:48 and you reverted the entire thing at 14:31. By the way, I have read your user page now and it turns out you have rollback privileges, which are being abused. :) Hurmata (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

One good way to start "rewriting" would be "dewriting": going back to June 2011 or even earlier. Even going back to October 9, 2011 — before over 100 pointless references were added in one day (see subsection below) — would give you clarity. Hurmata (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't use rollback to undo your edits because they were in WP:AGF. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation overkill and other excesses

In a single day, October 10, 2011, AJona^Selena 4 ever^ increased the number of footnotes from 175 to 283. This was in response to me adding the Unreferenced tag at the top of the page. I had in mind very subjective statements like "Selena's fan base, were people who were "shut-off" from the rest of the world, and were minorities. Selena was credited for giving them a voice, and power to do anything that they set their mind to." It was terrible for such a strong opinion to be unsourced. But I left it alone. Later the same day, a third editor deleted it charging NPOV. AJona's 100+ extra footnotes did not improve the article. Later, another editor called our attention to WP:Citation overkill. (See also WP:Bombardment)

I have started to track down some of the worst of the bad edits, like the above quotation and two instances of broken English. So far, each thing I've tracked was originated by AJona^Selena 4 ever^ at the end of July. Originally, the above social criticism statement (inserted 07:24, 29 July 2011) was "sourced" — but to a work for which I can find no bibliographic citation! Somehow, even that was eventually deleted. AJona^Selena 4 ever^ was also the creator of the phrase "Selena's death reactions" for "reactions to Selena's death". Hurmata (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you say "Jona" or "AJona1992" like everyone else? Thanks, btw per WP:LEAD statements do not need to be sourced if not in article body. Every statement is sourced, its not costumed to cite every sentence if they are of the same source. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't say that statements in the lead must be sourced in the lead. That is a red herring on your part, which you have used at least once in edit summaries. Besides, it has nothing to do with the objection you are trying to rebut. Let others notice that once again, you refuse to get into specifics: this time, you have not shown where the claim is sourced outside the lead, and you have not shown there was a bibliographic entry that I overlooked. BTW, once again you give yourself away as someone who is not a native speaker of English, contrary to what you claim. In that respect at least, you are not everything you claim to be. Native speakers of English, even uneducated ones, do not confuse "costume" with "custom" or "accustomed". Of course, in this context "accustomed" would also be wrong. The word you were seeking is "customary". Hurmata (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

AJona1992^Selena 4 ever^ made three spurious references to support his claim that she "is regarded as the most popular Latin artist". This editor cited three sources that date to around the time of her death — sixteen years ago! And at least one of them, the Victoria Advocate reporting that she had been shot dead, didn't even state she was at that time the most popular Latin artist! A third editor has removed this claim from the lead, but forgot to remove it from the body. Selena's been dead 16 years. In 2011 there are "Latin" artists more popular than her. Hurmata (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the third editor involved, many of AJona sources are very questionable, like Spanish television gossip shows and so forth, while some of the content is good and can stay, every source needs to be checked for accuracy, and I can't access some of them because they under paid walls. If I could find time, I'll do the source check because I don't want the article to go though featured article review, but I myself would personally place the article there if Ajona interferes with us improving the article from any policy violating statements. Secret ^account 04:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is to discuss my partially reverting the article to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selena&oldid=454807253 by Secret, 2:30 10 October 2011. Before posting the change, I added back more recent changes. First and foremost, my justification for doing this is quality and ease of editing. But I also cite WP:POINT and WP:Citation overkill. After 2:30 on 10 October, I added an Unreferenced tag, believing that certain subjective claims were unsourced. The response of AJona^Selena 4 ever^ was to add over 100 more references in the space of 24 hours to an article that already had 175. If nothing else, the result of this outburst on AJona's part is to degrade the article, which counteracts his desire to keep it deserving of Featured Article status. The new references referred to trivial points or to already referenced points. Example: the number of references to support the sentence, the family "was evicted . . . relocated to Corpus Christi" increased from one to seven. Example: four references were given to support the date of the rerelease of her first recordings. The full title of WP:POINT is "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Hurmata (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You was not the only user who complained about the lack of sources. So I added more in WP:AGF because I don't WP:OWN this article and I thought it would lower tension about WP:RS issues. But I do agree with you on the overkill. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Selena's death reactions"

There are many instances of bad grammar, and a few of outright broken English. The reasons I single this one out for its own section are (1) as an intended paraphrase of "reactions to Selena's death", it's especially atrocious, totally un-English; (2) it was quickly REVERTED (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Selena&oldid=454866985) by the editor who says of himself that he's a poor writer in English. Please do not put grossly ungrammatical writing into Wikipedia just to oppose an editor. Hurmata (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Focus on her father is excessive

You could come away thinking that this article, and Selena's life, are as much about her father as about her. Well, it's even conceivable that the evidence supports that opinion (in which case, source the opinion properly). But that does not excuse the present state of the article, swamped as it is with references to the domineering father. Even if it had been true that she and her siblings were permanently under his thumb, he did not do the singing that earned all the glory, and he is not the subject of this biography. Besides, she had six years of life as an adult and she did assert herself enough to marry against his fierce opposition, and she stayed married to that guy. Telling the truth about his impact on her career does not have to mean a litany of her father this, her father that. Hurmata (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain what needs to be removed (and maybe moved to his own article)? Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What needs to be done?

I have started this discussion to help users who are involved with the Selena article on what needs to be done to keep the FA status of this article. Please do not add more needless sections of the same issues as it is flooding the talk page instead, please address all concerns that you have with the article (not users, if you have an issue with a user, please address it to their talk page not here). Please write down what needs to be fixed or any other concerns you have with this article. While addressing, please do not WP:SHOUT, WP:BITE and do not attack anyone to illustrate a WP:POINT, remember that no one WP:OWNs this article. Also as a reminder, please do not address the issues with a user if it was in WP:AGF. This section is for improvements that needs to be done to maintain the article's FA status, not to scream to other users who edited the article. If tensions spiral out of control I believe a WP:RFC and/or an admin action would help. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Pinkadelica

Numerous sections need to be pruned quite drastically to be honest. This article sounds more like a mooning fan page than an encyclopedic article. For instance, does there really need to be an entire section on the products Selena endorsed? I think people realize that most public figures endorse products, but I have yet to see an entire section documenting this for other performers on Wikipedia. It seems needless. The "Public image" section is also poorly written. Who cares if Selena "gave compliments to each person she had encountered"? Again, that sounds very fansite-y. There are also quite a few grammatically incorrect and downright nonsensical sentences throughout the article (ex. "Selena's nail polishes were all disguised by color, texture, and name." - what does that mean? Far as I know, nail polishes are not disguised to begin with and they should only have one texture!). I tried to go through the article awhile back to make sense of and correct a lot of the content and found it almost impossible. If your aim is to bring the article back up to FA quality, I suggest looking to earlier versions of the article for guidance as a lot of the changes made were not beneficial and are poorly written. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well since Selena products was deleted we can't merge that section on there. Also other celebrities (singers) such as Britney Spears has a "products" section so Selena shouldn't be any exception. That first sentence you had brought up was to show how Selena cared for her community/people around her as she was known to be more of a fan then a celebrity and was down-to-Earth, can't really say that to any other celebrities. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the Britney Spears article and there is no section about her product endorsements as far as I can tell (further, that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument). Be that as it may, the section in this article that deals with Selena's product endorsements is poorly written and far too long. I could see mentioning her endorsement deals within the text of her career as it relates to that, but I don't see why such a subject warrants its own lengthy section. As for Selena being down to earth, etc., that is conjecture and again, not encyclopedic. That kind of content is more fitted to a fansite, not an encyclopedia. Her personality or how she treated fans probably merits a one sentence mention at best. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry I had meant this link sorry about that. I do agree that is it poorly written but so are all the others that's why I requested a c/e at WP:GOCE/REQ. Not everyone in the world is perfect and yes I made a lot of mistakes but I WP:AGF with this article and asked for a WP:PR and WP:GOCE, I had not left the article to die and allow other users to simply fix the outstanding issues. The public image section (I believe you are referring to) is an encyclopedic section, however, its tone and writing may not be at the moment, but that section tells about the subject's life outside of her career. If this is not suitable then may I suggest a "public image" article for Selena? (similar to Public image of David Irving)? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

IP

This article could honestly be a candidate for worst article on Wikipedia. It's way too long, disorganized, and large swaths of it don't make syntactic or grammatical sense in English. Take, for instance, this sentence: "Selena was credited as being the first woman to change the minds of people about feminine beauty, she also started that movement." Right.209.6.28.116 (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is sourced whats wrong with it? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP makes a valid point (several actually) - the sentence makes no sense and is probably downright false. Selena was hardly the first unconventional beauty who changed people's conceptions of what a pretty woman is or was. She was a musician first and foremost - her looks really had little to do with her career. Had she been a model, I could see that sentence (rewritten extensively of course) being included, but she was a singer. I'm also wondering what movement Selena supposedly started. The movement of being pretty? I think these are the kinds questions people have when they read some of the oddly worded content throughout this article because quite a bit of what is written simply makes no sense. Most of it sounds like oddly worded fluff that is only present to paint the subject in a glowing light. Further, just because content can be sourced does not mean it belongs in an article. That is a HUGE misconception. The bottom line here is the content included should support why Selena is notable (ie her music career and accomplishments in the industry). Content about how she was pretty and supposedly a super person who was nice to her fans just doesn't belong, especially since the majority of that content sounds like it was run through Google translator and makes very little sense to those who read and speak English. Again, I think your best bet is to go through the history of this article back to when it actually passed FA standards and review the content. Personally, I think rolling it back to an older version before all these changes were implemented is a good idea. There is just far too many problems in the current version to even wade through and fix. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is not false if you can see it is sourced by the Biography Channel episode which had experience writers, musicians, film producers, etc talking about Selena and her life and what she had done for women. This episode/show is foremost reliable then an independent biographical film. Selena's look had a lot to do with her career, believe it or not, no one could understand a female singer lead a Tejano band, let alone a female who looked like Selena. Selena was seen as a "sex symbol" to male fans and a "barbie doll" to female fans. Selena was not like other Tejano artists, let alone female Tejano artists, because Selena emphasizes family values then her personnel on stage even though she had wore sexy outfits. I requested that I expanded this article (since at the time it did not represent the major aspects of the subject and was not broad in its coverage) with WP:RfC and they took in favor of my additions. I wouldn't want to rollback the article, in my point of view, because the article is now expanded and is soon going to be c/e at WP:GOCE. But if any content that should be deleted, reworded or just remove then what would that be? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

One thing that's wrong with it grammatically is that it is two complete sentences (independent clauses) separated by a comma. That's known as a "comma splice" and while there may be cases where it has stylistic value this isn't one of them. But the main problem is neither of the two contentions could possibly be supported. "She started that movement"? Which movement is that? The link is to Feminist movement which of course started well before she was born. Gr8white (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at this and at 0:48 the person says "It just change the way people see feminine beauty and Selena is the one who made that break and who started that". So she had not made a "movement" for feminine beauty but a break. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone's opinion is particularly noteworthy it should be presented in a way that makes it clear it is that person's opinion. See here. Saying "...was credited with..." makes it sound like it was universally accepted and not just someone's offered opinion. Other than that I don't think as written it even correctly represents that person's opinion. And "she started that movement" is hopelessly vague, so even if she did start some movement that would need to be clearly identified (and linking to "feminist movement" further obfuscates the matter). I'm really just trying to be helpful here, you asked what was wrong with the sentence and I'm offering my humble opinion. Gr8white (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, he was the first person that I heard even mentioned Selena as part of a break for female beauty/feminine. I don't mind searching for sources indicating that Selena was somehow reliable for changing views of female beauty/feminine. No, I am very glad that you are being helpful here, you are giving me advice on things I can't see instead of screaming and pointing fingers like other users. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain no one here is screaming or pointing fingers at you. In fact, I do not see any personal attacks or even a comment about you as a person. You asked for opinions about the article and thus far, all you have done is challenge everyone who has (correctly) pointed out that the article is full of grammatically incorrect content that doesn't make sense. If you did not want constructive criticism about the article, you should not have asked for it. If you truly want to improve the article, stop taking comments about the content as a personal affront. First off, I said the sentence regarding Selena's beauty is probably false because it is clearly an opinion and can easily be argued by anyone. Again, the fact that it is sourced means nothing - that just makes it a very unclear opinion that happens to be sourced. An opinion is also not a fact and should not be presented as such - that's basically what that sentence does. As Gr8white stated above, this supposed "movement" the sentence refers to vague. I am aware that Selena's presence and success was one of (if not the) first in Tejano music, but that had little to do with her looks. Her being young and attractive no doubt helped her career, but I'd bet good money that the reason she was successful had more to do with the catchy songs she released and the fact that she toured relentlessly. Pinkadelica^♣ 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Not in this section but in the previous ones and on their talk pages they were. That's why I felt that having this section so everyone could all come together and talk about improving the article would be best then having multiple sections in one sentence about the same thing. Well I'm sorry if I came about like that, I was just replying on what I felt about the statement. I agree with you on what you said, however, Selena's down-to-Earth is second to why she got so famous and her beauty and attraction to male fans is third to that argument. Now, since the article is going to be at WP:FAR, I feel bad for User:Secret because he had done an amazing job with the article. I only wanted to expand it and like I said not everyone is perfect, esp in writing in perfect English. I just don't think I should be pointed as the "bad guy" since I was only following what WP:BOLD had said. Furthermore, removing content is now at the hands at WP:FAR and hopefully the article will remain a WP:FA with improvements from users who can c/e the article and improve on its prose. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

FAR discussion

I have opened a discussion on this article at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#Double_checking_before_nominating, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why if users are improving it and are giving helpful insight on what needs to be done on the talk page? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted, per that discussion, to the October 13, 2010 version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent removal

I think we should discuss in talk the recent removal of some content, including most of the impact section that was the same content since it first became an FA back in 2006. I reverted so we could discuss further in talk. Thanks Secret ^account 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of that crap was allowed to stay in the article when it attained FA! (I've seen enough other Wikipedia FA not to be surprised.) OK, it is not obvious to some editors, but: nitty gritty details of someone's life, the stuff that would properly fill a book or a magazine story, usually do not belong in an encyclopedia. Try the major WP criterion of notability. I've read dozens of entertainer BLP's at WP, dozens of post 1950 musical performer BLP's, and they do not contain crap like what hospital the person was born at. It is absolutely irrelevant that an inappropriate item appeared in the original FA! There's no need for consensus on getting rid of trivia. Half of the disgrace of this article is not that trivia was put in, that literal nonsense was put in, but that other editors allowed these things to stay in, sometimes for years. Agaaain: you're talking about protecting stuff that doesn't appear in just about any comparable BLP.

This encyclopedia article is not supposed to read like a real biography; it's not supposed to read like a fan Website.

Anecdotes can be appropriate to use sparingly to enliven the narration, to advance it, when they would in fact do so. Especially if they're amusing or directly relate to how the subject came to be famous, to be culturally important (e.g., an anecdote about how the members of a great band met). Sparingly, because the person's career is supposed to provide sufficient interest on its own. Use judgement. Of course, the history of this article is that it has been dominated by editors who have no judgement at any level. The hospital Selena was born in — for shame. Again, to people who may be stunned at my vehemence, we're dealing with an article which (1) was deemed a paragon of WP, (2) which is bound to get especially many visits because of who it's about, (3) is, as somebody else wrote in the last few days, is now one of the dregs of WP. Hurmata (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Aside from a lot of the trivial details that Hurmata mentioned, the article was also riddled with grammatical errors and sentences that made no sense. It was basically impossible to make heads or tails out of some of the content that was included which is why I supported the rollback to a previous version. I read through the article awhile back thinking I could trim some content and clean it up a bit, but the amount of trivial junk (for lack of a better word) and POV content was just overwhelming. I also think there may have been some issues with sourcing as I found a dubious claim in the article awhile back claiming Selena became a billionaire during the course of her career. Turns out the source that was given (a video from an episode of 20/20) clearly stated she eventually became a millionaire. That's just one thing I caught but I think the archives of the talk page show that others questioned a few of the claims that were made throughout the article too. I don't see a problem with new content being added as long as the article doesn't turn back into the fanfest that it previously was. Content about how friendly, nice and beautiful Selena was shouldn't be included. While I'm sure she was all those things, it has nothing to do with her notability. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes the article that SandyGeorgia reverted was deservedly removed, but I don't see the point of removing most of the legacy section and album details, especially that most other music articles GAs and FAs has them, Aaliyah for example. And I don't consider most of the information to be trivia, (I removed the hospital, and the birth name details as that was way too trivial) and irrelevant. It's ok per WP:MOS#MUSIC. I honestly don't like how this is going. Secret ^account 08:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Secret, I just don't want to do a WP:3RR edit warring here. I think its best to get everyone to understand each others points and see which path is best. The recent removal made by Hurmata was not a very good one, DOY is considered a "Historic day in Latin music history" (Billboard) why remove most of that information for the uninformed reader? We don't need to remove content that passed FA, we need to expand and update with WP:RS. Not everyone in the world knows who Selena is so we can't just say "... Selena was preparing for a crossover album" Why isn't crossover wikilink? and why was she recording a crossover album if she sung songs in Spanish? Just my two cents. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A mass revert to the last good version will inevitably kill some good along with the bad; there is usually some content that may need to be restored. But this time, just do it slowly and based on consensus-- there's no need to edit war again, and there's no hurry. Content can be restored and upgraded the right way this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I decided to not edit the article at all unless there are consensus for it. Or better yet, allow someone who is better at writing content to add the information on the article so it won't effect the prose and grammar of the article. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

These could help improve the article

I believe these following statements should be in the article, I would like to hear what others think:

1. Information about Marcella having a tumor and that doctors had wanted to remove it.
2. That Selena was thought to be a boy and her parents were going for "Marc Antony".
3. How Selena was discovered by her father.
4. How Selena learned Spanish (phonetically).
5. How Selena was discriminated for being a female singer in a male-dominate genre.
6. That "Oh Mama" had led Selena to appear as musical guests on the Johnny Canales Show.
7. Domination at the Tejano Music Awards (she won Female Vocalist for eight consecutive years).
8. Sony Music Latin offered Selena's dad double the amount EMI Latin was offering for signing Selena.
9. Al Aguilar, president of the Lionel Sosa agency declared Selena as "the next Janet Jackson".
10. Selena was given $145,000 a year from Coca-Cola USA for three Spanish-language commercials in Mexico, including one in English for the United States.
11. How Selena's father turned down beer companies from advertising Selena because of her image and had wanted it to be clean.
12. Jose Behar and Stephen Finfer requested for the crossover in 1989.
13. EMI didn't believe Selena was "crossover potential".
14. "Contigo Quiero Estar" became the highest charted (peaked at #8 on the Latin Regional Mexican Airplay chart) for Selena.
15. "La Bamba" became Selena's first charted single August 1987. (not sure whats the peak per [5])
16. Pete Astudillo joined the band in 1989 as a back-up dancer. (there's no mention of him at all, he wrote some of Selena's biggest hits and had done several duets with her)
17. By 1990, Selena became a millionaire
18. She became a spokesperson for the Texas Prevention Partnership, sponsored by the TCADA.
19. "Ven Conmigo" became the first Tejano album recorded by a female artist to achieve gold status.
20. The album remained on Billboard's Regional Mexican Albums for fifty-six weeks, an unprecedented feat for a Tejano act.
21. Selena's works pave way for the "Tejano music movement" in Texas, wider audiences and record sales began to expand awareness for Tejano music.
22. Yolanda Saldivar (murderer of Selena) originally dislike the singer but her friends told her to give her a try and that's when she asked to open the fan club.
23. Entre a Mi Mundo sold 300,000 copies and became the first Tejano album by a female singer to sell that many.
24. The album reached number one on Billboard's Regional Mexican Albums chart, and earned the accolade as the number-one Regional Mexican Album of The Year.
25. The success from Entre a Mi Mundo helped EMI Latin to prepare Selena for a press tour, including a high-profile meet-and-greet conference with music media types in Monterrey, Mexico.
26. "Amor Prohibido" (song) was nominated for a Grammy Award as well as the album itself.
27. In (or by) December 1994, the album Amor Prohibido sold more than 400,000 copies, which was "unheard of" for a Tejano artist
28. Selena's image helped her to stay in Coca-Cola after the company fired other celebrities only keeping Selena for Coke, Elton John for Diet Coke and Christopher Cross for Sprite.
29. The single "Bidi Bidi Bom Bom" was a song that was not originally planned to be recorded, became one of Selena's most famous songs, winning Bertelsmann Music Group's "Song of The Year".
30. Tejano music has not recovered since the death of Selena whose appeal extended beyond the Tejano genre: Such celebrities as Beyoncé, Myra, Paula DeAnda, 3LW, Christina Aguilera, Shakira, Nadia López, Diana Reyes, Ivy Queen, Fanny Lú, Don Omar, Kat Deluna, Eva Longoria, Wyclef Jean, Daddy Yankee, Aventura, Jennifer Pena, David Archuleta, The Cheetah Girls, Lila Downs, Tito Nieves, Manny Manuel, Girl in a Coma, Malverde, Angel y Khriz, Karen Rodriguez, Sara Tavares, Prince Royce, Bruno Mars, Frankie J, Perez Hilton, Katy Perry, Ashlee Simpson, Q'orianka Kilcher, and Enrique Iglesias have identified themselves as fans of her.
31. That Selena Gomez was named after Selena.
32. That Selena's music is liked by LGBT people.
33. That Selena specials air annually on Spanish-speaking channels.
34. Selena is regarded as one of the most widely known Mexican-American vocal artists.
35. Selena was most popular Latin artist in the United States in 1995.
36. A "Philanthropy" section needs to be written.
37. The "Discography" section needs to have "Selena albums discography" and "Selena singles discography". Can they also be divided like it once was with {{Col-2}}?

Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How Selena Gomez was named by Selena is kinda trivial. Secret ^account 03:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, we can cross that off the list :) What about the others? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW you think you can add {{main}} template for the "death" section to the Murder of Selena article? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 03:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether to report on a memorial concert

I deleted the report of a televised memorial concert that was held to commemorate the tenth anniversary of Selena's death. The point of the passage was how popular she still is. Here are two things that in themselves are not worthy of being discussed in detail in a Wikipedia article. (1) The continued popularity of an dead entertainer. (2) That a public gathering was huge and got a lot of publicity. These things are either nonnotable in themselves or they add nothing to an essay about a life and career that was notable.

As for (1), one of the bad judgements exercised over the years by some editors of this article is to make it a masturbatory and fetishistic indulgence in statistics about her accolades, chart positions, and dollar figures. Selena had a record breaking popularity and some editors can't quit detailing it ad nauseam. Selena's like Elvis or the Beatles, she continues to be popular long beyond the end of her final recording. Elvis has a museum too. And Dolly Parton. Nothing to dwell on. One deleted sentence reported that Selena songs were sung at the Selena memorial concert. Hel-lo! I noticed too that the source for the statistic on the popularity of the broadcast was an online report by the broadcaster itself. Although I do trust this source on this particular occasion, the reliance on a source with a conflict of interest is unfortunate. Again, this point should not distract us from the first point, that there is a history with this article of overkill in describing her posthumous popularity.

As for (2), every year worldwide there are tens of thousands of public entertainment events — World Cup matches, Rolling Stones concerts, etc. — which attract 50,000 bodies and gross hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Those facts don't make them notable for an encyclopedia. How ridiculous, to have an encyclopedia article dedicated to, say, each Beatles concert ever. Accordingly, the article on the tenth anniversary memorial concert ought to be deleted unless it was significant in some way other than it celebrated Selena. Hurmata (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In my final sentence just previous, "it" refers to the concert, of course, not the article about the concert. I should have constructed that sentence differently. Hurmata (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal of the content, however, I agree with what you said. The source is a WP:PRIMARY source, however, this and these are WP:RS and could be replaced. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 02:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To provide more perspective on the unwelcome edits. They seem to represent a morbid urge to pretend that Selena is still alive, 16 years on. It's like inserting, "every day millions of fans of Selena listen to her recordings at home, on the street, while driving. There was a broadcast X, Y people tuned in, there was a broadcast Q, Z people tuned into that one." Take these edits to a fan site, for goodness' sake. Likewise, the article on Shakespeare should not advise as to the minutiae of Shakespeare festivals. Hurmata (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, (1) you don't WP:OWN this article, (2) if consensus by the community wants that information on the article it will be on it weather you like it or not, (3) why are trying to make a WP:POINT by telling us that because X celebrity doesn't have it Selena shouldn't it, (4) I'm not sure why are you arguing about this anyway, I provided you a WP:RS from Billboard and numerous of other online searches on google.news and you still want to say that it shouldn't be included because you're only valid argument is that Selena is dead therefore we shouldn't add anything that talks about her milestones in the history of America pertaining after her murder? All information could be added, just as long as it doesn't fail WP:MEMORIAL. BTW, sorry if this sounds a bit harsh in anyway just trying to reply to your comment about this. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

AJona1992, can you dial it back a bit because you're coming off as defensive and bordering on rude. There's no reason to bring up stuff like WP:OWN and WP:POINT (which you're using in the wrong context anyway) when the editor you're speaking with is not exhibiting those behaviors. Fact of the matter is that a consensus about most of what you're bringing up was already established because the article was mass reverted back to a previous version. As I told you before, just because you can find a source to support something does not always mean it belongs in an article on Wikipedia. If a few of you guys are jonesing to put the "Legacy" section back in, why not copy it from a previous version in the article to a sandbox and work on it sentence by sentence to bring it up to speed. Once an agreed upon version is made, bring it to this talk page and let the community decide if it is worthy of inclusion. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yea I'm sorry, I did said sorry if I was bordering as defensive. Actually the editor is, that's why I had brought those up. User:Secret, User:SandyGeorgia and User:Brianboulton told everyone that consensus should be made before editing/improving the article further. However, since the article was reverted by SandyGerogia, Hurmata removed all information found in "Legacy" that passed at WP:FAC. These examples are WP:OWN, esp when the editor has been warned once, twice, three times, admin tried to talk to the user and the last warning made. Hurmata has been bordering the WP:OWN policy, esp her massive removal of content without a consensus from the community. Furthermore, this argument is not weather or not a statement about a historic event that has a WP:PRIMARY should be added, weather, the argument is about Hurmata removing a historic event that warrants its inclusion in the article per the WP:FAC2 and the statement is sourced. Before I even started editing the Selena article, this statement was there. Again, Hurmata removed the content without a consensus that was clearly stated by three editors for any improvements. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not seeing any ownership issues. What I see is a content dispute about mentioning a memorial concert. That being said, I see no reason not to mention it as it did involve Selena and was evidently a popular event. This source supports that it was highly rated, so much so that it was released on CD and DVD. Since it was also seemingly the first concert memorial regarding Selena, I also don't see a problem with mentioning it. Now if it had been the fifth or twentieth, I could see a notability problem as memorial concerts can become a dime a dozen. As for the main article being deleted...I think if someone has a problem with it, they should nominated it for deletion. Personally, I think it likely meets WP:NALBUMS and WP:TVSERIES (as it was a tv special) and getting it deleted is unlikely to happen. The article currently needs extensive work but I do think it is likely notable. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well its 3 against 1, however, I believe Hurmata's voice shouldn't be left out of this. Although she is against mentioning the concert, I would like to know further on why she thinks that so we can have a better understanding on what we might not get. This can improve on the way we will mention the concert. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the concert outperformed the Super Bowl and Soy Tu Dueña and was considered the "Most-Watched NFL Season Ever among Hispanics" [6], [7]. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 03:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Selena Linda.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Selena Linda.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Selena Linda.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Early Discography

Why has her early discography been deleted from the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.12.13 (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Because only her studio albums are needed, those were LP records. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 12:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This reference Caller-Times April 16, 1997. is cited in "Early Life" but has no corroborative statements indicating her parents belonged to a denomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.144.132 (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

any chance of a decent pic of what Selena looked like? CorvetteZ51 (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:American people of Native American descent

I removed it, not because I do not think she has any, but because I see no evidence of it in the article, if you wish to cite a source that says otherwise, please do. Adam (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a source here. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 01:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2013

Her name is changed. 72.229.60.62 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. If you're talking about the vandalism on the article it has been reverted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for expansion of article

I've made several failed attempts to request an expansion on this article in the past. There are several, if not, numerous vital information that this FA is missing. Atop of the number of information the article lacks, the lead does not follow WP:LEAD and is disorganized. The lead represents the present first then the past. Here's an example: She was named the "top Latin artist of the '90s" and "Best selling Latin artist of the decade" by Billboard for her fourteen top-ten singles in the Top Latin Songs chart, including seven number-one hits. Selena had the most successful singles of 1994 and 1995, "Amor Prohibido" and "No Me Queda Más". She was called "The Queen of Tejano music" and the Mexican equivalent of Madonna. However, other FAs such as Mariah Carey and Janet Jackson represents a past-to-present flow (how the artist began in the music business, first album, first success, expanding ventures, number-one singles, honors from media outlets, total sales figures and current works). Selena's article does not; honors from media outlets, number-one singles, cited artists, first recordings, expanding venture, death, impact and total sales figures. The lead also blocks her signature recording "Como La Flor" and does not mention her studio albums before and after signing a recording contract with Capital/EMI Latin. The lead also does not cover her first Grammy win, the fact Amor Prohibido became one of the best-selling Latin Albums of the United States, her success in the Latin world that led to her crossover deal, the impact of Dreaming of You and her clothing ventures. The lead spotlights on her murder for two sentences which is enough but doesn't cover the impact it had among Hispanics around the world and keeps Selena ¡VIVE! out. In previous discussions on this article had brought attention that it also does not follow other FA music-related artists articles. The success section does not cover her four-number one singles from Amor Prohibido, becoming the first Hispanic act to do so. And this "Selena and her band received yet more accolades" is not a encyclopedic tone, among others. The murder section is short and leaves out the meeting Selena and her husband had made the night before, the amount Saldivar stole from Selena, the fact that her father found out and not the entire family and Saldivar's 9 hour standoff. The "Posthumous commemorations and popularity" is a joke and shouldn't be that small when comparing to this, this, this and this. But what about all of these, these, this, these and these. That section also does not mention the record-breaking ratings of Selena VIVE, the annual memorial held in Corpus Christi, the Selena look-alike TV competitions, the Selena Museum, her statue and the allegations of the Quintanilla family as exploiting her. Last but not least, her "Philanthropy" section is missing accounting that there are over 20 books on her and each dedicates her own "Philanthropy" section in their books is astonishing to say that this FA does not have one. I'm not impress with this article—never have been—and would like to see it similar to this Wikipedia article on her someday. However, today I request the addition of missing information and the expansion that will follow it. Best, jona^{talk to me} 18:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"Coolest Americans in History" attribution

Something that should be fixed: In the second paragraph, there's a mention of Selena being names one of the "100 Coolest Americans in History" or somesuch, as named by the Albany Times-Union. In reality, this was just the Times-Union reporting on an honor given to her by the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. - her inclusion in the "American Cool" exhibit, which is 100 "public figures who point up the richness and depth of American popular culture" Which is probably a bigger honor anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.90.63 (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014

Please lower main picture size and correct spelling errors in description.

67.249.52.99 (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I set the image to 200px as advised in WP:infobox. You'll need to be more specific about the other changes. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nickname "Queen of Latin Music" is being disputed

In the beginning of the article it states Selena is the "Queen of Latin Music" but that is disputed in fact, a quick search in any search engine for "Queen of Latin Music" shows some other latin artists such as La Lupe and Celia Cruz... I think that should be removed, the site from the citation is probably a fan website. One thing I do not question is her being the "The Queen of Tejano Music". 2602:306:CC23:2D20:AC7E:CF02:22E5:9CA3 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done the cited source does not state "Queen of Latin Music" at all, so I have removed this as unsourced - Arjayay (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nickname "Queen of Latin Music" is not being disputed

I think that it shouldn't be removed because she made Latin music popular and if she would have lived longer, she would have been more successful than what she was. I think also by adding a lot of the cumbia and merenque steps it just made her more known as the "Queen". Gabreno03 (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I think not, there are other artists that have that title such as Celia Cruz. But don't get me wrong selena was a great latina artist.192.107.136.16 (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

editing change requested

I think this part needs to be reworded.

From: After learning to sing at age three, Selena's father started a vocal group when she was nine. The group, Selena y Los Dinos, consisted of Selena, her older brother A.B., and her older sister Suzette.[4] The group initially performed at a restaurant the family operated[5] until the business went bankrupt soon thereafter. The Quintanilla family then moved to Corpus Christi, Texas, where Selena y Los Dinos performed wherever they could - street corners, weddings, quinceañeras, and fairs.

To: Selena learned to sing when she was three years old. When she was nine, her father started Selena y Los Dinos, a vocal group consisting of Selena, her older brother A.B. and her older sister Suzette.[4] They sang at the restaurant their father managed but after it closed in 19??, the family moved to Corpus Christi. Selena y Los Dinos then performed wherever they could - street corners, weddings, quinceañeras and local fairs.

---

The sentence, "The group initially performed at a restaurant the family operated[5] until the business went bankrupt soon thereafter." implies that the restaurant went bankrupt because the group was playing there.

I think it would be good to add the year the restaurant closed to give readers a sense of the timeline.

There needs to be a link to "fair."

Thank you Rissa, copy editor (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)