Talk:Freya Fox

Main photo is AI. Shouldn't it be removed? 12.50.243.34 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

If it is AI, it definitely should, per the recent RfC. And yes, it looks suspect - the hands look odd, which is often a giveaway, and other things don't ring true either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Comparing it with photos on Fox's own website, it seems more or less self-evident that this is either AI, or it has been so heavily photoshopped that it is no longer an accurate depiction. I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

AI image detector says "confident that this image, or a significant part of it, was created by AI." Isaidnoway (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

A Google Image search finds identical images from as far back as 3 years ago. I very much doubt that it is the uploader's 'own work', and is thus quite possibly also a copyright violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Another reason to have it removed from this article, although Commons will have to deal with the copyvio issue. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That would be more likely to have happened if one of you had let Commons know. Google however, is not showing anything older than 3 months for me, If you can find older, please provide a link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The whole page is full of fraudulent citations using paid articles to establish claims of performances and championships that straight up didn’t happen 2600:8800:8EE0:1600:F9A5:A845:7526:2B4F (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

She uses these paid articles to get verified on socials in order to scam people by appearing as an authentic celebrity when in reality every publication is a paid publication on her behalf and all of her social media engagement is very blatantly botted. 2600:8800:8EE0:1600:F9A5:A845:7526:2B4F (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Source 1 is a great example of this

https://weraveyou.com/2025/05/aapi-dj-freya-fox-suno-4-5-sparkle-suki-%E3%81%99%E3%81%8D/ 2600:8800:8EE0:1600:F9A5:A845:7526:2B4F (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Update, reached out to a handful of sources, source 1 is now a broken link as the page was removed by the owner of the site after i spoke with him about her fraud.

working on a few more sources 199.34.92.144 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

• Specific text to be added or removed: source/ref 1

Dov, Yotam (May 8, 2025). "AAPI DJ & Freya Fox unite with Suno 4.5 on 'Sparkle + Suki (すき)'". We Rave You. Retrieved May 9, 2025.

• Reason for the change: Site owner removed article after i discussed authenticity of it with him he verified that article and a few more were paid write ups.
• References supporting change: https://weraveyou.com/2025/05/aapi-dj-freya-fox-suno-4-5-sparkle-suki-%E3%81%99%E3%81%8D/

There are plenty more but this ones confirmed removed from their website as of now. 199.34.92.144 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Though IP is now proxy blocked, I did remove quite a few unreliable sources. S0091 (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

=== Response to Notability Tag === I believe the notability tag should be removed as the subject meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Specifically:

• The book ‘‘TikTok Boom: China’s Dynamite App and the Superpower Race for Social Media’’ by Chris Stokel-Walker (a notable author with his own Wikipedia page) dedicates an entire chapter to Freya Fox, spanning more than 14 pages (the Google Books preview shows a portion, but the full book provides extensive detail). This constitutes “significant coverage” as defined in WP:GNG, where the source addresses the topic directly and in detail from an independent, published perspective. Books like this are explicitly recognized as valid secondary sources for establishing notability.

• Additional reliable sources include articles from ‘‘Variety’’, ‘‘PinkNews’’, ‘‘Dexerto’’, ‘‘Deadline’’, and ‘‘StyleCaster’’, all of which have editorial oversight and provide independent coverage of her career as a DJ, producer, singer, actress, and former professional gamer. These go beyond trivial mentions and collectively demonstrate sustained notability.

Regarding Biographies of Living Persons policies, the article relies on high-quality, published sources for all claims, with no unsourced contentious material. Any potentially unreliable sources (e.g., the removed ‘‘We Rave You’’ article) have been addressed, leaving a solid foundation of verifiable content.

The article has been stable for months without deletion nominations or major administrative interventions, indicating community consensus on its viability under BLP standards. If specific sources are still in question, I suggest auditing and refining them rather than tagging the entire article.

Let’s discuss and reach consensus. Psyopsforhire (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Also , We Rave You is a reliable source . Tons of EDM producers like JacKEL have it in their bio without issue. Just because it was deleted doesn’t mean it wasn’t published and there’s no proof of it being paid coverage Psyopsforhire (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

For Dextero, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 262#Dexerto where editors found it to be unreliable. Deadline is a mention, PinkNews is based on what she says so a WP:primary source and not independent; likewise StyleCaster is an interview. None of those are helpful for notability. S0091 (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring the book having an entire chapter on her which is not an interview .

Also you ignored that multiple DJs have We Rave You as a secondary reliable source. The publication reaches millions of Edm fans per month Psyopsforhire (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

We Rave You is just a promotion/marketing site where they will help you develop a marketing plan so not a reliable source. Not to mention, for whatever reason the article just published in May was taken down. The book...maybe, but that is just one possible source that meets GNG. S0091 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

To note, the "entire chapter" mentioned appears to be all of 3 pages; it doesn't look like it's excerpted. It probably counts as significant enough independent sourcing, but it's still a single source, and there's nothing else in the article that suggests anything close to meeting that threshold. I do think it's time to just AfD this and get wider input. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It is not 3 pages, but a chapter about Freya Fox's career. The book has no proper digital scans and was reprinted in two different versions. The linked version of the book in the sources, (if you pay as a member) has an official scan by the publisher which shows a real world print range of approximately 14 physical paper pages.

And yes there are many other sources that meet it include the Patch.com staff report, the fact that she appeared on Bling Empire (Netflix) and of course Authority Control.

MYX TV also did a social media carousel about her, I know that isn't exactly and article write up but MYX TV/ABS CBN is one of the highest trusted media sources in the Philippines and for the Filipino American diaspora in the United States. I vote NO for AfD Jkbislove (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jkbislove do you have a copy of the book or access to the version you speak of so you could quote portions if asked? That might be helpful in the AfD. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes I do. Also I want to add this major source I was able to recover and argue why it shouldn't even go to AfD please see the laws regarding strict Vietnamese media coverage when it comes to non political news

@David Fuchs @S0091

I appreciate the admin's feedback on sourcing, but I respectfully disagree that only the book qualifies under [[WP:GNG]]. In addition to the extensive chapter in Chris Stokel-Walker's ''TikTok Boom'' (which alone provides significant, independent coverage spanning multiple pages), the Vietnamese news article from yeuthethao.vn qualifies as another reliable, secondary source demonstrating notability. Here's why it strengthens the case against an AfD nomination:

• Article Details and Coverage: The article, titled "Nữ streamer xinh đẹp hợp tác cùng Tổ chức Ung thư Hoa Kỳ" (archived [https://web.archive.org/web/20200918064321/https://yeuthethao.vn/nu-streamer-xinh-dep-hop-tac-cung-to-chuc-ung-thu-hoa-ky.html here]), provides in-depth coverage of Freya Fox (Jannelle Kao), including her birthdate, career as a professional gamer and streamer (e.g., winner of the 2018 Facebook Gaming Fighting Game Championship), roles as a musician, entrepreneur, influencer, and author, and her collaborations with the American Cancer Society (ACS). It details specific events like the "Gamers vs Cancer" stream in May 2020, her prior $2,000 fundraising in 2018, and personal motivations tied to her father's battle with prostate cancer. This is not trivial; it's biographical and analytical, meeting GNG's requirement for direct, detailed treatment.
• Reliability Under Vietnamese Media Regulations: Yeuthethao.vn is operated by FAN90 MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY LIMITED, which holds License No. 71/GP-TTĐT for establishing a general electronic information page, issued by the Ho Chi Minh City Department of Information and Communications on December 17, 2019. The content is managed by editor Mr. Nguyen Tan Huy which has an official vietnamese gov mail; . Under Vietnam's 2016 Press Law and related decrees (e.g., Decree 72/2013/ND-CP on internet services and online information), all news outlets and electronic portals must obtain such licenses from the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) or local departments. This involves rigorous vetting, including requirements for editorial staff qualifications, fact-checking protocols, and adherence to accuracy standards—especially for content about individuals, where false reporting can lead to fines, license revocation, or shutdowns. The government exercises strict oversight, mandating that licensed media maintain editorial integrity and avoid unverified claims, with penalties for violations (e.g., the MIC has fined or suspended outlets for inaccuracies). This regulatory framework enhances reliability for non-political topics like entertainment and charity collaborations, as outlets risk severe consequences for publishing unreliable content.
• Independence and Context: The article is independent of the subject (no affiliation indicated) and appears to draw from Báo Thể thao & Văn hóa (Sports & Culture Newspaper), a established Vietnamese state-affiliated publication known for sports and cultural reporting. While Vietnam's media landscape involves state influence (as noted by RSF), licensed sources are routinely accepted on Wikipedia for factual, non-controversial coverage per [[WP:RS]]—similar to how state media from other countries (e.g., BBC or Xinhua for apolitical facts) are used. This adds to the multiple sources (e.g., Variety, PinkNews) already establishing sustained notability beyond a single event.

Combined with the book and other citations, this pushes the article well over GNG thresholds for a BLP. If concerns persist about this specific source, we could discuss adding it with attribution or seeking more input from [[WP:RSN]], but it doesn't warrant AfD. Thoughts? Jkbislove (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jkbislove if you used AI to help you put that together, please see WP:AITALK. Even if not see WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:TLDR. Be concise please. S0091 (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, English is not my first language so I use AI sometimes to help me write complex replies. My TLDR is that, Vietnamese news outlets are heavily regulated due to their laws regarding news publication. The website was granted a media license which means they have strict editorial oversight standards. The outlet also mentioned it was adapted from an original report by Theo Báo Thể thao & Văn hóa

which is a highly respected Sports outlet in Vietnam. Again being featured in the Vietnamese news is highly notable as not just anyone can be published due to Government laws. Thank you@S0091 Jkbislove (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I also want to point out that @ScottishFinnishRadishanother Administrator reverted heavy vandalism to this page and also felt that all the facts that @S0091 seemingly felt were irrelevant, were kept as part of the factual statements of her page. The notable "trivial" reporting of Ricky Siahaan's death is significant because she reported it minutes after his confirmed death, hours before the band made any official statement. This was highlighted and praised in Indonesian media if you guys translate them Jkbislove (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jkbislove see WP:BLPN#Freya Fox, posted by SFR, which is how I came across the article. S0091 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the mention of the BLPN I am just trying to keep it civil as the initial vandalism was severe Jkbislove (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Freya Fox is not a notable person. Her articles are mostly paid by herself. Her photos are all AI. She claims she can unban social media accounts. She generates attention because she pays for engagement and has an army of bots. Requesting this profile be close down. If Wikipedia leaves this sort of rubbish up then it has failed its mission. ~2026-20195-1 (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

You realize we can see your IP Address right? What you are posting is libelous and it’s highly illegal to defame someone. It’s highly recommended not to post defamation from a public IP address Jkbislove (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Jkbislove, you might do well to read Wikipedia:No legal threats. And who is the 'we' that can read IPs? Wikipedia has been using temporary accounts for unregistered users for some time now, making IPs non-visible to anyone without the necessary authorisation - which I very much doubt you thave. There are clearly reasonable grounds, given the history of this page along with other evidence, to believe that Fox (or someone acting on her behalf) has been boosting her image by paid-for media etc. There is little question that AI-enhanced images have been used. You aren't going to stifle criticism of obvious attempts to abuse Wikipedia for publicity purposes by issuing ridiculous pseudo-legalistic bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Andythegrump I am glad someone else is here who understands what is going on. ~2026-20195-1 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I am going to agree with jkb is love and psyops for hire . Pages like Social Repose rely heavily on his own primary sources and interviews . Whereas freya fox here has a very good mix of secondary , book features, and tv appearances

the very fact that people continually try to vandalize her page shows she is notable enough. No random person would get anonymous people talking about her to this degree 184.82.123.42 (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I second this she is quite famous in SEA and the Vietnam and Thai sources confirm it 174.198.5.115 (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the notability, primary sources and unreliable sources templates. Articles are assessed according to current policies and guidelines, and not in comparison to some arbitrary other article, the level of vandalism, or vague unsourced statements about being 'quite famous'. Read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and do not remove again without consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is according to notability a book chapter is more than suffice especially when written by an award wining journalist.

Remove this tag 🏷️ is my vote TheScarletWitchWanda (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia content decisions are rarely decided by votes. And which 'award winning journalist' are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

She’s voting because consensus is how decisions are made on talk pages according to social repose and jackEl

This appears to be a vote of consensus

I have read the book in my university the book is used by the University of Ohio and that’s how I found her Wikipedia page and I was interested in her as a subject which seems to be someone else you don’t like Chris Stokel-Walker he appears to have an award from Newcastle University for his excellence in teaching journalism. Don’t forget that this page is authority controlled, which is a high marker of authority in Wikipedia. Psyopsforhire (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Psyopsforhire and @TheScarletWitchWanda would either of you be able to provide the text of the chapter to me in an email so I could help assess notability? I don't have access to the text otherwise. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Chris Stolker Walker.

• Authority control identifiers (e.g., VIAF, MusicBrainz in the template) are among the strongest verifiability markers for BLPs, linking to global library catalogs that independently recognize Freya Fox's identity and works. This confirms established notability beyond a single event, aligning with WP:BLP's emphasis on high-quality, external validation—no self-published or promotional reliance.

seeing that you don’t seek to understand that @AndyTheGrump and have very uncivil and uncalled for edits. I will be reporting your rather grumpy behavior to [[WP:AN]] since you can’t familiarize yourself properly with authority control. You do know that not just any musician can get that control right? TheScarletWitchWanda (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

You are of course free to do that. I'd recommend reading WP:BOOMERANG first though. And dedicating a little time to learning how Wikipedia treats notability and reliability - they are two entirely different concepts, and one can't be substituted for the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Authority control enhances verifiability under WP:VERIFY (which BLP invokes), as databases like MusicBrainz are considered reliable for factual identity checks in music contexts (per WP:RS and WP:MUSIC) @AndyTheGrump 174.194.129.13 (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

!votes ….Support removing the notability tag per WP:GNG and WP:CON. The book ‘‘TikTok Boom: China’s Dynamite App and the Superpower Race for Social Media’’ by Chris Stokel-Walker (notable author with his own WP page) dedicates an entire chapter to Freya Fox (~14 pages in print, beyond Google preview), providing significant independent secondary coverage of her TikTok/influencer career—meeting GNG thresholds alone. Supplemented by reliable sources like ‘‘Variety’’ (career analysis), archived yeuthethao.vn (regulated Vietnamese article on gaming/charity, under MIC oversight for factual accuracy), and authority control (MusicBrainz verifying discography/identity per WP:VERIFY and WP:MUSIC). Dexerto/We Rave You issues addressed (removed); no single-source reliance. Multiple editors (Psyopsforhire, Jkbislove, IPs, TheScarletWitchWanda) agree—consensus favors removal, no AfD needed. 174.194.129.13 (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, nobody has yet started an AfD, and as far as I'm concerned Fox may possibly meet Wikipedia notability criteria - the issue is that the article doesn't use sources in the manner necessary to demonstrate it. As for Chris Stokel-Walker, I've just WP:PRODed that stub 'biography' for lack of evidence of notability. Stokel-Walker has written for a fair number of top-quality publications, but I can't find any real evidence that he has been written about in any depth, which is what matters under Wikipedia notability criteria. Which isn't to say he can't be a reliable source, but at the moment all he is being cited for is Fox's performances. Doesn't he have anything to say about Fox beyond listing where she's performed? That can't be the whole chapter, surely? What does he say about her life? Where is the analysis of her performances? This is supposed to be a biography, not a listing of random performances. As for the rest, I've not looked at all the sources, but I can assure you that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, whether a publication is 'regulated' by the Vietnamese government (or any other) has precisely zero relevance when assessing reliability.

As for !votes, that isn't how Wikipedia works. And I very much doubt that the endless stream of IPs commenting here would be given much weight by any uninvolved experienced Wikipedia contributor, given that they are clearly being canvassed from outside, and/or are the same person IP-hopping. Likewise, single-purpose accounts with very few edits and little in the way of understanding of Wikipedia policy can't expect to determine content. If there is an impasse, we can look for input from uninvolved contributors via a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, though again, what matters is policy-based arguments, not externally-canvassed evidence-free 'she's famous' comments and the like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is for non AFD, and also removing the tag. @AndyTheGrump needs to also familiarize themselves with Vietnamese laws regarding factual and reliable news sourcing. As per Vietnamese law is it illegal to publish unreliable, poorly researched, and claims that cannot be backed up by strict journalistic practices. Nobody can just open up a random news blog or website in Vietnam. All journalists must be vetted by the Vietnamese Government.

Wikipedia considers this to be reliable Totalconcentration (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

What makes you, a contributor with 5 edits in total to Wikipedia, qualified to tell us what Wikipedia considers reliable? We assess sources for content under our own policies, and do not hand over such assessments to third parties, government or otherwise. As for 'consensus is for non AFD' that is an utterly meaningless statement. Any contributor can nominate an article for deletion, if they think that they have valid grounds under Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Prior consensus has never been required to start an AfD. Please take the time to study Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practice before commenting further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How exactly does a single brief appearance in Bling Empire: New York constitute a 'career'? It clearly doesn't, by any reasonable definition of the word, and unless reliably sourced content describing further significantTV appearances can be added to the section, it needs to go. I'll leave this for a few days, and then remove the section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I had removed it before for similar reasons and now it's back with WP:CITEKILL but equally poor sources. S0091 (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The sourcing isn't really relevant. Even if impeccably sourced, a single appearance doesn't constitute a career. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I have now deleted the section, on the grounds given above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

First of all I want to request an Administrator such as @Timrollpickering @GiantSnowman or @Gerda Arendt to review AndyTheGrump @AndyTheGrump uncivil revision heavy removals of ANY new sources to this page. It appears that this Editor is non-partial to the subject and is the only one making undo revisions on even the most valid edits. Andy was the first editor to delete the main image after an anonymous IP user posted about it. He then let the page exist for months without issue, until recently in August when he decided its no longer notable.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias This is not an attack but a call for transparency, given the platform’s ongoing efforts to address gender equity. Thoughts?

Regarding the Music festival table, quite literally **Guinness Book of World Records** the biggest Female Kpop artist in the world Lisa_(rapper) has only 3 music festivals listed using the same Template I've attempted to add and make it look correct with viable references. Andy's Swift removal without even checking once that the most followed Kpop artist in the world has this template (and likely many other artist do) is in my opinion proof that @AndyTheGrump is unjustly removing anything without even doing basic research. Jkbislove (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing article content. If you wish to raise issues concerning contributor behaviour, the proper venue (after possibly first discussing the matter on the contributor's user talk page) is WP:ANI. Feel free to do either, though I'd strongly recommend reading WP:BOOMERANG before going to WP:ANI, since I will have several questions to ask concerning recent contributors to this article and/or talk page who seem to share multiple characteristics in common - most notably little other editing history beyond Fox, a tendency to spout off incessantly about Wikipedia policies they clearly don't understand, and an insistence on filling the article with endless streams of badly-sourced promotional trivia. I'd have to suggest that the community well may decide that regarding issues of partiality (a word you appear from above not to actually understand, though perhaps that is a typo?) the problem doesn't lie with me, but with those who fail to acknowledge the difference between encyclopaedic biography and promotional fancruft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)