Talk:Andrew Tate

Latest comment: 20 days ago by AimanAbir18plus in topic Separate article for Tristan Tate

Kickboxing

edit

Hello I would like to add sourced information into his kickboxing career and record Alcapone211 (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Separate article for Tristan Tate

edit

When searching Tristan Tate on Wikipedia it redirects to the article of Andrew Tate. But Tristan is a separate person and popular media influencer and deserves a separate article. In fact, a separate article for Tristan Tate is as important as Andrew Tate's article. So, let's make a separate article for Tristan Tate. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tristan Tate article was deleted at AfD in March 2024, that's why there is no article. See talk. CNC (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Its an atypical close though, its extremely technical and does not preclude recreation with higher quality sources "This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Horse Eye's Back: the close came down to sources, which isn't particularly atypical especially for a BLP. Has better sourcing emerged since the AFD? My recollection at the time was there there were lots of trivial mentions but no depth of coverage in RS. VQuakr (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The close (according to the closer) came down to WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, the coverage of the various trials is in-depth coverage in RS but much of it falls within this special BLP protection. This was essentially a TNT close on BLP grounds, it was no consensus after all not not a consensus to delete. WP:PERP in particular indicates that we could make a subpage for the court cases without making one for Tristan Tate specifically, so there are a few options here... Not just a stand-alone Tristan Tate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The close was definitively delete not no consensus. If no new, substantial sources are available since the closure then further discussion seems unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is the entirety of the close: "The result was delete. Once you discard the !votes not based on policy or guidelines, views seem evenly split between Keep and Delete. Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation, as we're dealing with a BLP that falls under the auspices of WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT, as some here correctly noted. This means we do not have the liberty to simply leave the offending page in place until better sources surface. The deletion is without prejudice against turning the page into a redirect to Andrew Tate, the appropriateness of which can be reviewed at RfD if disputed." so you are clearly wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's a delete closure, like I said. Not a no consensus closure. So no, I don't see anything that would result in me being "clearly wrong". I also (still) haven't seen any sources presented that would alter the outcome of that discussion. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Normally, that would result in a No consensus close. But this isn't a normal situation" and you don't seem to have offered an opinion on the options offered by the BLP page even through the closer mentions them explicitly, are we not supposed to follow WP:PERP and WP:SUSPECT? You also appear to have been involved in the close, so you lack the objectivity to evaluate it... I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, so we now agree this was closed as delete, good. I was not involved in the close. I was involved in the discussion. Not that it matters. Anyways, since you're unable/unwilling to provide sources this appears to be a dead issue. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you contributed to the discussion then you are involved in the close, you appear to lack the objectivity to evaluate it which is why you are now attacking me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not what "involved in the close" means. You don't get to choose who participates in a discussion. No one is "attacking" you. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Theres an awful lot of aggression being directed my way by you if you do not mean to be attacking me. You've made this extremely personal and haven't actualy addressed policy or guideline here unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, there isn't. If you have behavioral concerns move to my talk page, please, rather than distracting from my policy-based concerns that have been ignored thus far. VQuakr (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
What policy based concerns have you raised which have been ignored? I will address them as best as I am able. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the 4th time: sources. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
We aren't lacking significant coverage, remember that all the stuff about the civil cases counts... Its only the criminal case coverage which doesn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can we get specific please? What specific secondary sources discuss Tristan Tate in depth and have come out since the last AFD, that might indicate that the subject now merits a stand-alone article? VQuakr (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why would they have needed to come out since the last AFD? It wasn't deleted for lack of coverage last time, it was deleted on a technicality. There is no consensus that the topic lacks the necessary coverage to be notable which would need to be overcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Huh? BLP is a core content policy not a technicality. If there are no new sources since last time, then it's logical to assume that there still isn't adequate sourcing for a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
There was never a consensus that there wasn't adequate sourcing for a stand-alone article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination). VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome to quote where you see that consensus in the closing statement, I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Most of the people voted to keep the article of Tristan Tate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Tate (2nd nomination). Still it was deleted. It seems undemocratic. Instead of deletion it could be sent to draft for further improvement. Tristan Tate is a notable online personality (social media influencer) along with his brother Tristan Tate. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Take it to the talk page, that's what it's there for. There is even a source list to work on, ie feel free to edit just leave a signature if you do. That's why I archived the discussion initially, as it has nothing directly to do with this page. CNC (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Given that we're discussing either a joint page for the brothers or breaking off the joint legal problems into their own article this is the right talk page. Please stop making these bold moves which you should know will be objected to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
My first thought was that the other Tate brother's notability was entirely dependent on this one's... But from a quick google I think that they almost certainly are notable, much of the coverage of the two does treat them as an item ("the Tates" "the Tate brothers" etc) so the two ways I can see us going with this are deciding that they're best covered together on a joint Tate brothers page (which this more or less currently is) or making a main page for each brother and a combined one for the combined legal issues. Due to the immense amount of coverage we have I would have a hard time arguing that multiple pages aren't due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification: AfD nomination

edit
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Legal affairs of the Tate brothers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal affairs of the Tate brothers until a consensus is reached. CNC (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply