Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robbie Tripp

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Tripp

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

NOT TABLOID. Unless his wife is a public figure, this article has major BLP problems. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically a WP:BLP1E - the 1E in this case is that the guy said he liked big women. The top news hit is a Daily Mail piece titled "I love her curvy body!", which doesn't exactly get us off to a flying start, there are other reliably sourced hits in Daily Telegraph, Washington Post and New Statesman, but ultimately that's just saying the same thing over and over again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as the article states, he's best known for his connection with someone who has a red link. Not notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As stated by Ritchie333^(talk) in the article's edit history when he removed first speedy deletion tag, the article has an overwhelming number of sources (30+ references) that speak to the notability of subject. Tripp is notable not only for the above mentioned viral post but also as an author, writer, and TEDx speaker. To deny a subject's credibility who has been discussed, cited, and featured in just about every major news source nationally and internationally is foolish. Clearly subject is notable on his own merits for more than one event and article discusses multiple notable works, thus not applicable to WP:BLP1E guidelines. Also, one could very easily reason that subject's wife is also a notable figure and deserves an article as well, thus strengthening this one. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too promotional as written. There's no real claim that he's known for anything other than being known, and many of the references are to Facebook, YouTube, Amazon and the like. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: The "promotional" aspect can easily be fixed by editors without deleting entire article. In response to power~enwiki, are you just selectively (and biasly) looking at the references to get this article deleted?? Among the 30+ sources on this article that include The New York Times, ABC, TODAY, and Daily Mail, there is just one YouTube reference to the subject's TEDx talk (another work which makes him notable), just one Amazon reference to his book (being a published author also makes you notable), and then Facebook references for two major celebrities--Adam Levine and Tia Mowry--that shared and commented on Tripp's viral story. All the points being made on this discussion simply warrant appropriate edits being made, not the entire article being deleted. By every guideline (and common sense), subject is well-known, notable, and well-covered in a variety of major sources. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Duplicate keep struck TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a TEDx talk certainly doesn't make one notable, and neither does having Adam Levine share a post on Facebook. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But having a TEDx talk in addition to being a published author and social media personality covered in every major news source nationally and internationally certainly does. Is anyone looking at the lengthy citation list of reputable sources on this subject? There are bonafide A-list movie stars with less sources than this. I say again, article should be kept and improved by editors, not deleted entirely. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is not a good argument. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, so keep the article and remove the reference. There is enough sources like BBC that are more than reputable. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails BLP1E and NOT TABLOID. Lepricavark (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As is being discussed above, there is nothing that definitively fails the BLP1E guidelines. Subject is clearly notable and for more than one event/work. Article should remain and be improved by editors. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article should be kept for same reason Ritchie333^(talk) removed speedy deletion tag when article was first created: "(plenty of sources, salvageable)." With this amount of references, it would be easy to reform any section with concerns. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Duplicate keep struck. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage about him and didn't meet SNG WP:AUTHOR — Ammarpad (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No significant coverage? Are you looking at the 30+ sources including The New York Times, BBC, TODAY, and ABC? Also, as mentioned above, there is nothing that definitively fails notability guidelines. Subject is clearly known and for more than one piece of work. WP:AUTHOR concerns aren't completely applicable here because subject is also social media personality. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So he is not author but you write he is Author and he is Writer in the most important, first line in the lead section? And you say they don't apply? This calls the factual accuracy of the entire article into question and it should be deleted. — Ammarpad (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re-read previous comment. Of course he is an author, what I'm saying is that he is not ONLY an author. He is also a social media figure, which should be taken into account as well. Subject is notable for more than just being an author. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since you now backtrack, and agree he is author, then WP:AUTHOR applies, and he fails it entirely. — Ammarpad (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe English is not your first language so I understand why you are confused. I am not "backtracking," I am telling you to re-read my comment because clearly you did not understand it. Obviously subject is an author, but he is not ONLY an author. Tripp is notable for more than just being an author so there are other guidelines/factors to take into account. 30+ references in major sources is more than enough to establish notability and shape article. User:CrispinAspen (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I broke this into pieces. I looked up the book and can't find any significant mainstream coverage. I read the coverage of the curvy post story and there's no corresponding biographical info that would suggest there's any interest in Robbie Tripp beyond his post. This article would actually have a better chance existing as Curvy wife post. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.