Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:50, 22 February 2024

Tristan Tate

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Personally, I do not believe this article should be deleted, however I do believe it requires work. I have been a mostly uninvolved editor in the draft. There has been some disagreements on whether this page should exist, and I would like to have greater consensus from the community as a whole, rather than relying on opinions of singular editors Mr Vili talk 09:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I believe this article does need work and clean up, I believe Tristan Tate is a highly notable individual - it is true that he rose to fame along-side his brother, Andrew, however he also is a European kickboxing champion and has starred in a reality TV show. His criminal case is additionally extremely high profile. A simple search for "who is tristan tate" returns a number of high quality sources from places such as The Independent, Hindustan Times and others Mr Vili talk 09:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - The article needs work as there are an unnecessary amount of unreliable sources, but he is clearly notable per WP:BASIC as I referenced in a previous discussion about this page, specifically multiple articles from RS with in-depth coverage of him, that are included in this article. Claims to the contrary sound unreasonable to me. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On further inspection of this article, it is a complete train wreck, even with less unreliable sources and enough notability for the subject.

For example, take a look at the WP:OPEN: "Tate, alongside his older brother Andrew, gained a notable internet following during 2022 by creating controversial content, promoting their online courses and appearing on podcasts. The content that he and his brother creates has been accused of being misogynistic." Sounds reasonable right? Until you check the sources. One of them is a random youtube video, GINX specifically states "Tristan Tate has largely supported his brother's takes, despite not being popularized for making similar claims himself." - which completely contradicts the claim in the lead.
Next line there are three sources for: "The content that he and his brother creates has been accused of being misogynistic." Only one of them mentions Tristan, specifically that "Tate and his brother Tristan were “raking in millions from webcam sites where men hand over a fortune as they fall for models’ fake sob stories” – something they themselves described as a “total scam”." - which has nothing to do with the claim.
Get to Online ventures; During the summer of 2022, Tate and his brother amassed a huge following on social media, both promoting an "ultra-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle". The Tate's content has been accused of being misogynistic by critics like Hope not Hate, an anti-extremism group, which has said that the Tates' social media presence may present a "dangerous slip road into the far-right" for their audience., then check the source... there is no mention of Tristan what so ever, Tristan's name has just been rammed into a description of Andrew.

In summary, from what I've seen (and given up trying to improve), it's full of WP:OR and the majority deserves to be deleted, as the sources do not back up the bold claims being made. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to add some additional RS I've found tomorrow, and ensure the various sections are validly sourced - I have not really edited the article before. Mr Vili talk 12:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm not opposed to keep, but based on it's current state and what I've seen I can't support it for now, even if the article certainly deserves to exist based on notability. I imagine the criminal investigation section has similar issues to what I already came across, generally sources not supporting the claims. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some additional sources and statements, particularly towards the lead section. Mr Vili talk 13:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor In terms of the sources where Tristan Tate is not explicitly mentioned, I still believe they are valid sources in the context of documenting the ongoing case, as it is inferred that Tristan Tate is involved in the same case as Andrew Tate - I don't see why every article must reference him directly, as long as there are other valid sources on his article that cover him in depth (which there are). Mr Vili talk 13:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Television, Crime, Boxing, Internet, Romania, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly within WP:GNG. References looks ok. See no reason for deletion at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is BLP1E, though. There's no need to have an article when the only thing he's notable for (getting arrested) is covered on other pages (his more notable brother's) PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the article is looking a bit better now. I've added some sources, the only section I have not looked deeply into yet is the criminal case section yet however so perhaps someone else could handle that as I'm off for the night. Mr Vili talk 13:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It sounds like this nomination is intended to attract help with editing an article, which isn't what the AfD process is for. Please check out WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:ATA. The subject of the article is obviously notable, and meets WP:GNG with plenty of coverage by reliable sources. Toughpigs (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's because the draft was moved to main space under the agreement that it would be immediately AfD'd. See this discussion and the one on the talk page PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I wouldn't be bothered if it was keep. Tate is only in the news for being arrested alongside his brother. Outside of that, none of the sources seem to show notability. Also I'm still irritated that you dragged me all the way to dispute resolution because I wouldn't accept your draft (when you could have simply asked someone else for a different opinion)

All the sources that address him are WP:BLP1E or unreliable. He got arrested with his more notable brother. Outside of that arrest for the one thing he did, there is no coverage, unlike with his brother PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

1 - possibly unreliable fight stats? don't count for notability

2 - seo/spam/nonsense

3 - part of their notability for human trafficking, BLP1E already covered by Andrew's page

4 - seo/spam/nonsense

5 - unreliable

6 - unreliable

7 - about his brother

8 - seo/spam/nonsense

9 - seo/spam/nonsense

10 - seo/spam/nonsense

11 - unreliable

12 - unreliable

13 - about his brother, mentions him in passing

14 - about his father, mentions him in passing

15 - about his brother, mentions him in passing

16 - connected to Tate, doesn't count for notability

17 - seo/spam/nonsense

18 - seo/spam/nonsense

19 - seo/spam/nonsense

20 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page

21 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page

22 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page

23 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page

24 - about the human trafficking, BLP1E applies

25 - about his brother, mentions him in passing

26 - decent

27 - seo/spam/nonsense

He got accused of sex trafficking. That's the only reason he's ever made it into reliable sources. Not enough to warrant a page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While not a fan of this article in it's current state, it's simply not true that all the sources are one event. Significant coverage has also been a profile of him a month after his arrest [1] followed by being charged [2]. That's two events and a profile (multiple reliable sources), so by definition can't be "one event". I assume you're referring to the current investigation being one event; his arrest, detention and charges, but that would be WP:BLP3E which doesn't exist. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still part of the overarching "event" (being accused of human trafficking). BLP1E doesn't have a time part on when the supposed "event" ends as far as I can tell. We don't have articles on every notorious murderer outside of their case, even if their trial extends the "event". If the person is notable for it, it's still BLP1E, from my understanding PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, my understanding of an "event" was probably misinformed them, given that Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event., so even a profile of him is within the event, as that was arguably the context. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is confusing and kind of vague on the circumstances in which it doesn't apply, so I can't blame you, but I think this is one case where it does. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Andrew Tate. This article is such a puffy mess that it would be better to delete it and start over, but I don't think the underlying subject is sufficiently notable regardless. There's a great deal of trivial coverage and lots of unreliable sourcing (including unreliable sourcing cited within this BLP!), but I'm not seeing SIGCOV beyond a bit of bio material connected to the arrest. VQuakr (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dude there's literally sources talking about his hair transplant like he's a celebrity, how is that not GNG Mr Vili talk 20:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sources already in article are sufficient to meet GNG. It doesn't matter if sources cover him and his brother as long as they cover him, which they do. Anyway, some of them are specifically about him, e.g.[3]. Central and Adams (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent source linked does not contain significant depth of coverage as would be required to meet GNG. It also doesn't address 1E concerns given that it's about the subject's arrest. Can you clarify what sources in the article or elsewhere meet GNG? VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Independent source contributes to meeting the GNG. Can you clarify why in the world anyone could think otherwise? What fringe interpretation of the GNG yields the conclusion that an entire article in an RS explicitly dedicated to the subject isn't relevant to meeting the GNG? As far as me clarifying what sources, well, it's obvious enough that the Reuters and the UK do. Central and Adams (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article on every single high profile criminal when we have articles on their crimes instead? No, because they're only notable for the crimes. All of the reliable coverage is in relation to the crime. That is all he is notable for, there's no reason to have a separate article that duplicates it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources are about him in relation to one event, which is already covered on Wikipedia. Textbook WP:BLP1E PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is patently untrue. Some of the sources discuss his television career. Central and Adams (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In significant detail? No. The story is first about the crimes, and an offhand mention that he did something else a decade ago is not significant coverage of his non-crime activities. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindustan Times has an article about how he's the Batman of our times that doesn't even mention his crimes. you're really reaching with the BLP1E claims. That applies to otherwise anonymous people who get caught up in some famous event. You might as well try to delete Mark David Chapman on BLP1E grounds. Central and Adams (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- here's another source not presently used in the article: [4]. Central and Adams (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was in the article and was removed for being nigh incomprehensible seo spam/unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 :::::BLP1E is confusing and kind of vague on the circumstances in which it ''doesn't'' apply, so I can't blame you, but I think this is one case where it does. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 17:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' and redirect to Andrew Tate. This article is such a puffy mess that it would be better to delete it and start over, but I don't think the underlying subject is sufficiently notable regardless. There's a great deal of trivial coverage and lots of unreliable sourcing (including unreliable sourcing cited within this BLP!), but I'm not seeing SIGCOV beyond a bit of bio material connected to the arrest. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
+*:Dude there's literally sources talking about his hair transplant like he's a celebrity, how is that not GNG <span style="background:#F84;padding:3px;border-radius:2px">[[User:Mr vili|<span style="color:#FFF">Mr Vili</span>]] [[User talk:Mr vili|<span style="background:#FFF;padding:0 4px;color:#F84;border-radius: 2px;">talk</span>]]</span> 20:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' -- sources already in article are sufficient to meet GNG. It doesn't matter if sources cover him and his brother as long as they cover him, which they do. Anyway, some of them are specifically about him, e.g.[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/andrew-tristan-tate-brother-arrest-trial-b2260087.html]. [[User:Central and Adams|Central and Adams]] ([[User talk:Central and Adams|talk]]) 20:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 ::The Independent source linked does not contain significant depth of coverage as would be required to meet GNG. It also doesn't address 1E concerns given that it's about the subject's arrest. Can you clarify what sources in the article or elsewhere meet GNG? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)