Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Tate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.46.53.221 (talk) at 23:35, 14 January 2020 (→‎Kent Tate: DEnglish mitigation various various). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kent Tate

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

Kent Tate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject has requested deletion of their article, VRTS ticket # 2019122410002207. This is a procedural action; I hold no opinion as to the notability of the article subject. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I've contributed some minor details to this article, mostly because the main contributor limited by COI rules can't directly improve the page. Various awards and other sources establish notability. IMHO the filmmaker is wrong about the purpose of this article, it is not supposed to mirror everything in his self-published bio. Of course this bio (=personal website) is linked in the infobox. Even a stub would be better than nothing and help users (including Googlebot) to figure out basic facts (Canada, awards, vimeo account, etc.) The article is already far better than a stub and further improvements incl. a filmography are planned or discussed on the talk page. This all or nothing AFD makes no sense for me. –84.46.52.190 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: ongoing relevant discussion at teahouse. This appears to be an overreaction to unsourced info being removed. But perhaps a related notability discussion is in order. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the Christmas teahouse discussion with the artist is already archived and presumably matches the OTRS request. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for information: Coffee, is it possible for you to tell us what reason, if any, the subject of the article gives for wanting deletion? Without knowing that we can't assess whether the request is a valid one or not. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 17:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note the following facts. An earlier article on the same subject was deleted as promotional. Two single-purpose COI accounts have now created two identical drafts for an article on the same subject, much more complimentary about him than the existing article. I would not wish to see the article deleted at the subject's request in order that he can have an article more to his liking posted on his behalf. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 17:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now realise that one of the accounts LorriBrown, is not, in fact, a single purpose account, as I said above. Far more of the account's editing has been related to Kent Tate than to any other single subject, but there have also been many edits on other topics. I apologise for the mistake. The other account, however, Cheri Brown, is a genuine single-purpose account. Among a total of 726 edits (most of them now deleted) I have not found a single one unrelated to Kent Tate. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 12:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JBW, could you link them please? Thanks. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked to find the pages in order to answer Usedtobecool's request, I have found that there have actually been more of them than I realised. There have been at least two articles Kent Tate that have been deleted, both created by Cheri Brown, though one had been moved to Draft:Kent Tate before deletion, which is why I didn't see it at first. Then there is, of course, the current version of the article, created by LorriBrown. Then there are at least four user space drafts for the article which have not been deleted, though two of them have been blanked: User:Cheri Brown/Draft of Kent Tate, User:Cheri Brown/sandbox, User:LorriBrown/Draft page, and User:LorriBrown/sandbox/Kent Tate. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 12:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "far more" summary measured in edits does not match "spent time" in articles created about Canadian artists (incl. various WIR) and film festivals, triggered by some teahouse question on one of my bold days I submitted a Draft:Susan Hudson as "WP:NPROF" in spring 2019. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I'm afraid that the artist or those connected to them may have felt exasperation at the admittedly strict requirements for content inclusion I have effected in a few of my edit request reviews I have performed (shown on the talk page). It was not my intent to alienate them, and I apologize if I have — but the requests have been light on providing what I saw as reliable, independent, secondary sources for some of the claims they've wanted to include, which seem primarily to have been the listing of their artistic output referenced by museum catalog-type publications. Regards,  Spintendo  17:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to a very helpful link posted at User talk:LorriBrown by Theroadislong, I have now seen two discussions where the reasosn for wanting deletion are given by Kent tate (who claims to really be Kent Tate, and I see no reason to doubt that) and LorriBrown (who has declared a conflict of interest as a relative of Kent Tate). The discussions are Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1039#How to request for an COI article to be deleted and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1040#how do I request a deletion of a wikipedia page about me?. Obviously anyone is free to read those discussions for themselves, but it is clear that essentially the reason for requesting deletion is that the editors in question were not able to get the article they wanted. LorriBrown is perfectly clear about that: she is quite explicit about her frustration at not getting the edits she wants because of "resistance" (as she calls it) form other editors. Kent tate is bit more equivocal. He claims not to be notable, but he also says "its clear that that author is unable to do anything with the article which keeps getting re-edited (reduced) by third parties" and "Every edit or addition she has tried to make only results in the article being reduced to the point where it doesn't really say anything", making it clear that the same frustration at not getting the kind of article about himself he wants is a substantial reason for wanting deletion, perhaps in fact the reason. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 17:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On the basis of what I have said in my message immediately above this one, I think we can reasonably take the deletion request as being for the two reasons mentioned there.
  1. Notability. While there are many better-sourced articles, the citations in the article do include some which give sufficient coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline.
  2. The subject of the articles and an associated COI editor don't like not being able to get the kind of article they think he deserves. We have probably thousands of articles about people which don't present those people in the way they would like. That is fundamental to the nature of Wikipedia as presenting an independent, third party, view. We don't delete for that reason, nor should we. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not a matter of liking or “not” liking the article its the matter of the COI and the lack of notability for a third party to add (or even allow) any additional information about the subject whether properly sourced or not. The “strict standards” applied to this article because of the COI are grounds for deletion and the subject should not have a wikipedia article until a third party without a COI creates an article on this subject. Kent tate (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "The “strict standards” applied to this article because of the COI are grounds for deletion " is not a valid reason for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kent tate, That doesn't make much sense at all. You say there shouldn't be an article "until a third party without a COI creates an article on this subject". However, you have elsewhere objected precisely to the fact that the current version of the article is the creation of editors without a COI, and expressed annoyance that the article "keeps getting re-edited (reduced) by third parties". You can't have it both ways. And what would you say if we delete the article because of the conflict of interest, and then a third party without a conflict of interest creates a new article which is substantially the same as the deleted one? If you are sincere in wanting the article deleted "until a third party without a COI creates an article on this subject" you should be perfectly happy with that, but in that case what on earth is your objection to keeping the current article? I could say more about the position you express on this matter, but really it is largely irrelevant, because, as "Theroadislong" has said above, conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion (though it is often a reason for third party editors to clean up an article). JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG. If the articles subject wants an article without a conflicted editor, then surely he can just tell her to stop editing and let all the neutral editors get on with improving it? We don't have to delete this one first. Theroadislong (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Okay, food for thought @JBW:Kent tate (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kent_Tate&oldid=935825125"