Talk:Tristan Tate
Latest comment: 46 minutes ago by AimanAbir18plus in topic Separate article for Tristan Tate
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Establishing notability
editSource assessment table originally created by TLAtlak on 26 February 2024.
Source assessment table:
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/andrew-tate-empire-real-story-1234696706/ | 
|
Rolling Stone is a high quality source in the field of culture.
|
While it is somewhat in the context of his brother, there is a full 200+ word paragraph exclusively analyzing Tristan and his character. Also WP:100W.
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/romanian-prosecutors-add-charge-against-online-personality-tristan-tate-2023-04-25/ |
|
|
~ It's somewhat WP:ROUTINE and doesn't go super in-depth, as noted by Novem Linguae. | ~ Partial |
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/andrew-tristan-tate-brother-arrest-trial-b2260087.html |
|
Reliable WP:NEWSORG
|
~ It's essentially fully about Tristan, but as noted by VQuakr, it's mostly about he was arrested, is less famous than his brother, and then basic facts. Good for verification, though. | ~ Partial |
| https://www.westernstandard.news/atlantic/tristan-tate-calls-for-people-to-cancel-canadian-comedian/50645 |
|
Presumably
|
 Title assumes knowledge of who Tristan is, and there is some verifying facts presented, but it's just very basic.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/from-jake-paul-to-tristan-tate-what-influencers-said-about-vivek-ramaswamy-dropping-out-101705406593110.html |
|
|
Title, again, assumes readers know who Tristan is, however it's just citing quotes from Tristan.
|
✘ No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
Separate article for Tristan Tate
editWhen 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)