User talk:FogleMorplethorpe

Hi FogleMorplethorpe! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 21:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GreenRedFlag - Appreciate your taking the time to review this article. I want to clarify a few things before getting to work: -"Too promotional in tone Examples: 'fierce fusion of rap, house…' 'Halloween-ready house anthem' 'manically pumped-up song' These must be paraphrased or contextualized, not presented as fact." I see, thank you for this. I just want to point out that the quotes you have mentioned here are all from writers, critics, or editors for independent sources. From what I've seen from extensive use of Wikipedia, this is pretty common practice (many articles about media include a "critical reception" section that is often awash with quotes). I can maybe do more paraphrasing as you've said if the quotes are overboard, but I also think the fact that independent writers took the time to select, describe, and praise the music helps justify the Lily's notoriety for the reader. My biggest quibble:-"Over-reliance on primary or affiliated sources YouTube uploads, official sites, Apple Music, Discogs — these are acceptable as verification sources, but not as notability sources." Thank you for this insight, but I truly believe that I am indeed using these sources as you are directing already; I even pointed this out in my initial post in the Talk section. The musical contributions mentioned are largely notable based on a) press coverage of the music mentioned (especially when it comes to Lily's solo work), or b) the sheer notability of the collaborating artist. For instance, Yvie Oddly is undoubtedly a major celebrity as the winner of the immensely popular Rupaul's Drag Race, having been somewhat of a celebrity drag performer before then. I linked to Yvie Oddly's official Youtube postings of their own popular songs because at those links you can see that Cherie Lily is listed as a producer, which is to say that Lily had a major hand in composing and recording the songs. The YouTube video for the Lily-produced Yvie Oddly song "Hype" (where Lily's production credit is clearly listed), has 2.4 million views. Press articles about such works might not mention Cherie Lily directly, but she had a major hand in creating these notable works as verified by the credits. Thus, I want to make sure that the reader can find links needed to verify Lily's essential contributions. When it comes to the Youtube videos of her performing with Andrew W.K. on Conan posted by (posted by an independent user), her song being used in an MTV commercial (posted by the record label Peace Biscuit), or the workout segment that she hosted on CBS (posted by Cherie Lily), I believe these should be used the same way archival sources (like archiv.is) are. The workout segment was initially televised by CBS to a mass audience and would itself serve as a notoriety marker, but the segment is not viewable online in other forms. Nonetheless, it was a notable media event at the time and I think it's reasonable for notoriety purposes. I don't think it's misleading or inflating to use such a source; here in New York City (and really throughout the US), CBS is considered a major network, and morning news shows are marquee programming. -"Suggested layout: Early Life and Education (if sourced) Career Early Music Work Fitness Career Solo Music Career Music Production Collaborations Business Roles Discography (summary only)" I truly appreciate your lending your advice here; I will do my best to replicate it. There is not much sourced about her early life apart from the early career details (the bands she got her start with and her developing an interest in fitness), but I think it makes sense perhaps to consolidate the collaborations such that her appearances on other people's songs and her collaborations with Andrew W.K. appear together, making the music career part less top-heavy. Thank you for this feedback! -"Fitness class locations Promotional appearances Minor singles unless covered independently Overly detailed descriptions of music videos Focus on impact, not activity." Thank you; I included the detail about the music video The Aquadettes swim team because it is such an ointeresting detail; there is no article about The Aquadettes on Wikipedia currently but frankly I do think that one will exist. A quick internet search should demonstrate their unique notoriety. But I will certainly reexamine these details and make such edits. FogleMorplethorpe (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] GreenRedFlag Hello again - I'm already working in these edits but just wanted to see if you had any thoughts on the above. Thank you! FogleMorplethorpe (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @GreenRedFlag Hi again - wanted to check back in here. Thank you! FogleMorplethorpe (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FogleMorplethorpe! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! GreenRedFlag (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage anyone interested in this to read the follow-up conversation I had on RangerRus's talk page. The very basis of this rejection is factually wrong. RangerRus says that they "didn't make [themself] clear" in the above message, and then goes ahead and repeats the same point without acknowledging any of the information I have brought to bear. Throughout the correspondence, their writing is at times incoherent, but it is clear that they are not even reading my responses or considering that "most" of my citations can't be only 7 out of 71 of them. FogleMorplethorpe ( talk ) 01:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC) FogleMorplethorpe (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I already gave you suggestions to improve the page. Like this source, here, here, here, what is this for? What coverage does this show about Cherie Lily? You need not ref bomb the article with sources such as these. I already told you about the kind of coverage needed for the subject to be seen as notable. This source here is a blog and unreliable. And this is not The track and video features Cherie Lily, who was pregnant at the time of filming of a healthy baby with husband Andrew WK significant coverage or anything notable. This source here again doesn't have the coverage to pass notability. Same for this. This here is what you will call a Non-independent source. This here is just an entry and no coverage. This here and here has nothing notable about the ssubject. These sources are what you call promotion and advertisement. So take your time, go through all sources and get rid of unnecessary sources. Keep sources that you believe have significant coverage on the notable career of the subject, showing her achievements that are widely recognized in well known reliable media. RangersRus (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your response. We seem to be moving on from the claim that all the sources are related to Drag Race, and moved onto an entirely different line of discussion about the admissibility of a small number of citations. Let's examine your examples. I would contend that the articles from Out (magazine) are indeed significant, independent, secondary sources. Out is one of the top LGBTQ magazines in the country, in print and online, as Google search should verify. It is frequently used as a citation in Wikipedia, and has its own Wikipedia page. That there is an entire "Need to Know" feature about Cherie Lily in Out Magazine, alone would display high notoriety, in my eyes, let alone the other article debuting her track. You've also cited another article about Cazwell's song that Cherie performs on; frankly, a if song getting a write-up in a major magazine does not count for notoriety, I'm not sure what in music does. Get Out! Magazine is also an independent in print and online magazine and is frequently used in Wikipedia pages. Both of these magazines have staffs, editors, bylines, etc. The fact that she has more than one dedicated feature in each of these independent, outlets shows notoriety. I'm curious on what grounds are you saying the Rainbow Times is a "non-independent source." It is an award-winning (awards: LGTBT Champion in Media, Solidaridad, Boston Pride) in-print and online publication, and it is listed here on Wikipedia on the List of LGBTQ periodicals. And, you guessed it, used as a citation in a ton of Wikipedia articles. Likewise, I would like to know how you made this evaluation for the Edge Media article. The entire website is journalistic, long-form reporting. I have provided a great number of citations that you are not highlighting, including Lily's recent feature in Buzz Music, features in TimeOut etc, and headlining photo features in Vice, Xex, Impose. In terms of articles non specifically about her, mentions in articles by Billboard, Variety, Interview, the Guardian, Pitchfork, Alternative Press, Gayety, LA Weekly, and Queerty just off of the top of my head. I even provided an example of a scholarly work in a peer-reviewed naming Lily an "icon of the gay scene". She has appeared as a named, featured guest on no less than four episodes of Here TV television shows, once on a popular IFC (American TV channel) show, once as a featured guest on CBS News, and as a member of a band on Conan O'Brien. Her song "Kiss My Lips" was featured on a commercial for an MTV show. She did not pay to advertise this song, they paid her to use it. I understand that you may not be impressed by this coverage or perhaps Lily's accomplishments in general. But unless you can provide any actual reason as to why these sources can be used as references for many other Wikipedia articles but not for this one, I don't think your critique is coherent. Wikipedia's guidelines do not require that an artist MUST win an award or sell any amount of records. Wikipedia's guidelines are rather clear that the coverage alone from secondary independent sources should be enough, and I have provided at least 30.

(Lily also meets Wikipedia's musician notability criteria #8 for the being on a Grammy-nominated album, and #6 for being in ensembles with two or more independently notable artists - both Andrew W.K.'s live band and To Live and Shave in LA meet this standard. She meets #11 for being placed in rotation on by a MTV vis-a-vis "Kiss My Lips", and she meets #12 for all her other TV appearances.) Wikipedia is also clear that while a substantial number secondary independent sources, are needed to prove a subject's notability, we are of course allowed to provide additional, primary or otherwise supportive sources for their informational value for the article. This is consistent with my conversation with other editors who have agreed. That is the purpose of many of these citations you are brining up now. Let's go through them. For example: The the Aquaria website, a primary source, shows that she is indeed the artist rep for this extremely famous drag artist (who has their own Wikipedia page). If Aquaria has high notoriety, and Cherie Lily's involvement as an artist manager with Voss has, in fact, been covered by reliable secondary sources, must there be a third secondary source stating that Lily is Aquaria's manager even though she is listed on Aquaria's official site? I could remove this primary source, but then you'd probably say this was a hallucination. Put it this way - if Benjamin Franklin made a cameo appearance on Abbey Road by The Beatles, it might not be the one thing that confers notoriety to either Benjamin Franklin or Abbey Road, but certainly it would be worth adding to a Wikipedia article if primary sources supported it, no? Similarly, the Bandcamp website for To Live and Shave in LA is an official offering from the artist that show's Cherie Lily's involvement in the album, as she is listed in the credits. The Record Collector Magazine citation right next to it illustrates the notoriety of the album itself. There are many other examples of writing about this album online. Surely it is helpful information and context on a Wikipedia page to show that Cherie Lily has an official credit with this band, which has enough notoriety to merit their own Wikipedia page (To Live and Shave in L.A.), on an album notable enough to have substantial press coverage about it, even if she is not specifically named in the press coverage. It should be clear, if you read the draft, that this is not being offered as a main justification of her notoriety, but rather as a detail to add color to her wide array of collaborations. Forbes magazine is by far the biggest business publication in the United States, and the article I have provided from it is about Voss Events, which, if you remember, is the company through which Cherie Lily serves the Drag Race contestant clients. This is to show the notoriety of Voss's business impact. I have cited other secondary source articles (and the primary source from Aquaria) to substantiate Lily's involvement. Likewise, the tour schedule for Werq the World (look at that, another Wiki page) archived from the Voss webpage cements the role of Voss as a notable force in culture, and verifies some of the personas involved. Apart from her administrative role in running this major international tour, Lily also composed music that was performed on the stage. You're right, this is a blog entry. I suppose I can remove it. FogleMorplethorpe (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Source Analysis: Source 1, promotional "recently stopped by the Out studio to chat about her upcoming EP entitled Werk" and fan base article "If I hadn't come out of the womb a fully formed Kinsey 6, I would be married to musician, promoter, and celebrity fitness instructor Cherie Lily". Source 2, promotional "SHADE SERVED" and Non-independent (comments by Cherie Lily) Source 3 , introduction of specific lineup performers. Source 4, passing mention Source 5, Non-independent Source 6, passing mention making brief comment Source 7, Non-independent Source 8, promotional and non-independent and a blog Source 9, announcement, promotional Source 10, entry "Next To Me With Cherie " just a music. Is the song with Cherie Lily? No coverage here anyways. Source 11, Non-independent Source 12, Non-independent Source 13, Non-independent Source 14, Non-independent, promotional and a blog Source 15, blog, fan base opinion on workout Source 16, just a media search result page Source 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Non-independent videos Source 22, mostly pictures for "Cherie Lily’s Album Release Party" Source 23, 404, page not found Source 24, Again album release party pictures Source 25, blog and "Sorry, we don’t seem to have the page you’re looking for, but please check our homepage for the latest articles." Source 26, brief advertisement on show in NYC with cost of ticket and location Source 27, advertisement on who to or had performed (Cherie Lily is one of them) and who will perform next for club runway. Source 28, very brief mention, advertisement for some show that night as its priced for $5? Source 29, release party advertisement, priced for $10? Source 30, passing mention. Source 31, non-independent video Source 32, blog and ready for Cherie Lily's website Source 33, press release, new single release promotion, endorsement. Source 34 video (?) Source 35 music video Source 36 passing mention Source 37 page not found 404 Source 38 Non-independent Source 39 page not found 404 Source 40 YouTube video with very brief introduction text about the video Source 41 Kevin Aviance charts the history of a genre shaped by New York's queer underground and one of them is body by his wife Cherie Lily. Source 42 video premiere advertisement of new single Source 43 , advertisement of MTV battle of exes YouTube. Source 44, list of all the new dance beats videos and one is by Cherie Lily "I like it" Source 45, blog on press annocement for 'Shade served", Non-independent. Source 46, Non-independent on promotion of Shades served video. Source 47, passing mention Source 48 YouTube, Non-independent Source 49 YouTube music video Source 50 interview with Vanessa Vanjie and Yvie. Source 51, mysic video by Yvie Source 52 one sentence comment by Cherie Source 53 passing mention Source 54 Non-independent about music video by Amanda Lepore Source 55 passing mention Source 56 passing mention Source 57 passing mention as part of her husband's band performing on Conan. Source 58 video of performance on Conan show Source 59 source by Guardian and no coverage Source 60 interview video with Lee "Scratch" Perry and Andrew WK. Why is this source even added? Source 61 official page of Lee Scratch Perry with passing mention of Cherie as Vocal in a song. Source 62 Grammy award for Lee Scratch Perry. No mention of Cherie. Source 63 what is this source on? No mention here. Source 64 passing mention Source 65 passing mention in interview with Cazwell Source 66 passing mention as Cazwell's favorite side chick, Cherie Lily. Sourve 67 passing mention Source 68 blog and personal site Source 69 just a contact information Source 70 no mention and Non-independent site as subject is associated, vossevents.com Source 71 no mention that I could find. One thing that is pretty evident is that Cherie Lily is probably best known as Andrew W.K.‘s wife but overall through sources, I did not find the subject notable. RangersRus (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] To be clear, you're calling feature articles by staff writers "non-independent" due to the fact that they interviewed the subject? FogleMorplethorpe (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]