Talk:Patrick Bet-David
Latest comment: 21 days ago by Avaldcast in topic First few citations
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sources
editI am not a wikipedia editor, but here are more general sources for anyone who wants them:
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-barron-trump-bet-david-millionaires-1898065
https://thespectator.com/topic/inside-unlikely-success-patrick-bet-david/ 47.190.117.192 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, it is easy to verify with mainstream sources that Bet-David is a well-known podcaster with a long list of celebrity guest appearances. It may be worthwhile to write the article from that perspective (Podcaster) instead of trying to establish a bunch of details about his business career?
First few citations
edit@Bonadea: The first few citations come from the infobox since he has YouTube channels. It's the metadata (e.g., subscribers) that the article is citing in those cases, not a specific video or something. Snowman304|talk 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can you please explain how the Spectator's article (https://thespectator.com/topic/inside-unlikely-success-patrick-bet-david/) which does a whole profile on Patrick Bet-David not a reputable source?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spectator Avaldcast (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Snowman304 and @Bonadea please go through citations. There's definitely reputable citations now and it was decline because "youtube" citations were at the top. Okay, moved reputable citations to the top now. Avaldcast (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Snowman304: Your comment confused me at first because I didn't understand how I could have missed that – but I think you must have been looking at a later version of the draft. When I declined it and commented on the first few sources, the draft looked like this!
- @Avaldcast: Nobody has commented on the Spectator source. It looks like my comment about the first five sources was misinterpreted: when you review a draft and find that none of the first sources is reliable, independent, and secondary, it is a waste of time to go on with the review. My point was that those sources could not be used and most of them should be removed entirely, it had nothing to do with the order of the references. You have submitted the draft for review, and the reviewer will make a new evaluation of the sources and the draft content. I'll make a quick source consolidation to help the next reviewer (as well as any future readers of the article). --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bonadea and @Snowman304 I added the Youtube portion and citations as with the Spectator source. So not sure what "version" you were referring to that the first citations were Youtube but the 4th or 5th one was the Spectator. Since the Spector article refers to Patrick's 8 million subscribers on Youtube, then I guess that could be a source for that aspect as well. Avaldcast (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)