Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

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. 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. Owen× ☎ 17:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Tate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Personally, I do not believe this article should be deleted, however I do believe it requires work. I have been a mostly uninvolved editor in the draft. There has been some disagreements on whether this page should exist, and I would like to have greater consensus from the community as a whole, rather than relying on opinions of singular editors Mr Vili talk 09:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Although I believe this article does need work and clean up, I believe Tristan Tate is a highly notable individual - it is true that he rose to fame along-side his brother, Andrew, however he also is a European kickboxing champion and has starred in a reality TV show. His criminal case is additionally extremely high profile. A simple search for "who is tristan tate" returns a number of high quality sources from places such as The Independent, Hindustan Times and others Mr Vili talk 09:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs work as there are an unnecessary amount of unreliable sources, but he is clearly notable per WP:BASIC as I referenced in a previous discussion about this page, specifically multiple articles from RS with in-depth coverage of him, that are included in this article. Claims to the contrary sound unreasonable to me. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further inspection of this article, it is a complete train wreck, even with less unreliable sources and enough notability for the subject.
  • For example, take a look at the WP:OPEN: "Tate, alongside his older brother Andrew, gained a notable internet following during 2022 by creating controversial content, promoting their online courses and appearing on podcasts. The content that he and his brother creates has been accused of being misogynistic." Sounds reasonable right? Until you check the sources. One of them is a random youtube video, GINX specifically states "Tristan Tate has largely supported his brother's takes, despite not being popularized for making similar claims himself." - which completely contradicts the claim in the lead.
  • Next line there are three sources for: "The content that he and his brother creates has been accused of being misogynistic." Only one of them mentions Tristan, specifically that "Tate and his brother Tristan were “raking in millions from webcam sites where men hand over a fortune as they fall for models’ fake sob stories” – something they themselves described as a “total scam”." - which has nothing to do with the claim.
  • Get to Online ventures; During the summer of 2022, Tate and his brother amassed a huge following on social media, both promoting an "ultra-masculine, ultra-luxurious lifestyle". The Tate's content has been accused of being misogynistic by critics like Hope not Hate, an anti-extremism group, which has said that the Tates' social media presence may present a "dangerous slip road into the far-right" for their audience., then check the source... there is no mention of Tristan what so ever, Tristan's name has just been rammed into a description of Andrew.
In summary, from what I've seen (and given up trying to improve), it's full of WP:OR and the majority deserves to be deleted, as the sources do not back up the bold claims being made. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to add some additional RS I've found tomorrow, and ensure the various sections are validly sourced - I have not really edited the article before. Mr Vili talk 12:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm not opposed to keep, but based on it's current state and what I've seen I can't support it for now, even if the article certainly deserves to exist based on notability. I imagine the criminal investigation section has similar issues to what I already came across, generally sources not supporting the claims. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some additional sources and statements, particularly towards the lead section. Mr Vili talk 13:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommunityNotesContributor In terms of the sources where Tristan Tate is not explicitly mentioned, I still believe they are valid sources in the context of documenting the ongoing case, as it is inferred that Tristan Tate is involved in the same case as Andrew Tate - I don't see why every article must reference him directly, as long as there are other valid sources on his article that cover him in depth (which there are). Mr Vili talk 13:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: I'm not seeing how this is a "clearly meets" situation without further elaboration. Would you be willing to expand, addressing WP:BIO1E and the depth of coverage in the sources available? VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is beginning to feel like badgering. You've already made your opinion abundantly clear. The closer will sort out the proper weight to give !votes. Central and Adams (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the article is looking a bit better now. I've added some sources, the only section I have not looked deeply into yet is the criminal case section yet however so perhaps someone else could handle that as I'm off for the night. Mr Vili talk 13:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: It sounds like this nomination is intended to attract help with editing an article, which isn't what the AfD process is for. Please check out WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:ATA. The subject of the article is obviously notable, and meets WP:GNG with plenty of coverage by reliable sources. Toughpigs (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Removing my vote, this whole discussion is a mess, and I don't want to be part of it. -- Toughpigs[reply]

  • Delete, but I wouldn't be bothered if it was keep. Tate is only in the news for being arrested alongside his brother. Outside of that, none of the sources seem to show notability. Also I'm still irritated that you dragged me all the way to dispute resolution because I wouldn't accept your draft (when you could have simply asked someone else for a different opinion)
All the sources that address him are WP:BLP1E or unreliable. He got arrested with his more notable brother. Outside of that arrest for the one thing he did, there is no coverage, unlike with his brother PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources:
1 - possibly unreliable fight stats? don't count for notability
2 - seo/spam/nonsense
3 - part of their notability for human trafficking, BLP1E already covered by Andrew's page
4 - seo/spam/nonsense
5 - unreliable
6 - unreliable
7 - about his brother
8 - seo/spam/nonsense
9 - seo/spam/nonsense
10 - seo/spam/nonsense
11 - unreliable
12 - unreliable
13 - about his brother, mentions him in passing
14 - about his father, mentions him in passing
15 - about his brother, mentions him in passing
16 - connected to Tate, doesn't count for notability
17 - seo/spam/nonsense
18 - seo/spam/nonsense
19 - seo/spam/nonsense
20 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page
21 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page
22 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page
23 - about him and his brother, again this content is already on his brother's page
24 - about the human trafficking, BLP1E applies
25 - about his brother, mentions him in passing
26 - decent
27 - seo/spam/nonsense
He got accused of sex trafficking. That's the only reason he's ever made it into reliable sources. Not enough to warrant a page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While not a fan of this article in it's current state, it's simply not true that all the sources are one event. Significant coverage has also been a profile of him a month after his arrest [1] followed by being charged [2]. That's two events and a profile (multiple reliable sources), so by definition can't be "one event". I assume you're referring to the current investigation being one event; his arrest, detention and charges, but that would be WP:BLP3E which doesn't exist. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still part of the overarching "event" (being accused of human trafficking). BLP1E doesn't have a time part on when the supposed "event" ends as far as I can tell. We don't have articles on every notorious murderer outside of their case, even if their trial extends the "event". If the person is notable for it, it's still BLP1E, from my understanding PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, my understanding of an "event" was probably misinformed them, given that Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event., so even a profile of him is within the event, as that was arguably the context. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is confusing and kind of vague on the circumstances in which it doesn't apply, so I can't blame you, but I think this is one case where it does. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Andrew Tate. This article is such a puffy mess that it would be better to delete it and start over, but I don't think the underlying subject is sufficiently notable regardless. There's a great deal of trivial coverage and lots of unreliable sourcing (including unreliable sourcing cited within this BLP!), but I'm not seeing SIGCOV beyond a bit of bio material connected to the arrest. VQuakr (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude there's literally sources talking about his hair transplant like he's a celebrity, how is that not GNG Mr Vili talk 20:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you really think "Hairpalace blog" is a reliable source than you have no business editing any article. It also isn't WP:SIGCOV. VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a hair transplantation clinic in Hungary talking about him in their blog seems like a reliable source about him having a hair transplant - obviously that is not enough to be the basis of an article but it clearly seems like an "expert" reliable source in the context of his hair.
There is a number of sources specifically talking about his hair [3] [4] [5] Mr Vili talk 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are never reliable sources. They are WP:SELFPUB. Part of being a reliable source is having professional writers with professional editors who do checking of the content. This is what "published" refers to in WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- sources already in article are sufficient to meet GNG. It doesn't matter if sources cover him and his brother as long as they cover him, which they do. Anyway, some of them are specifically about him, e.g.[6]. Central and Adams (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent source linked does not contain significant depth of coverage as would be required to meet GNG. It also doesn't address 1E concerns given that it's about the subject's arrest. Can you clarify what sources in the article or elsewhere meet GNG? VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Independent source contributes to meeting the GNG. Can you clarify why in the world anyone could think otherwise? What fringe interpretation of the GNG yields the conclusion that an entire article in an RS explicitly dedicated to the subject isn't relevant to meeting the GNG? As far as me clarifying what sources, well, it's obvious enough that the Reuters and the UK do. Central and Adams (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an article on every single high profile criminal when we have articles on their crimes instead? No, because they're only notable for the crimes. All of the reliable coverage is in relation to the crime. That is all he is notable for, there's no reason to have a separate article that duplicates it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. Obviously we take high profile criminals on a case by case basis, as we're doing now. Central and Adams (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the case by case basis part, but there are no reliable sources that go in depth on him beyond an offhand mention that "he was in a reality tv show ten years ago and has a more famous brother". There's not enough discussion on him in reliable, independent sources.
The policy exists for a reason, and when there's nothing we can source to reliable independent sources on the guy besides "he is accused of a crime" and it's already duplicated in another article, why have an article for any reason besides the sake of having one? There's nothing gained. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Central and Adams: no, it is not so obvious to me that no further defense than "of course" is needed. The Independent source has markedly little to say about the subject. Specifically, it says: that he was arrested, is less famous than his brother. From there everything is just copypasta from his intagram and other PR sources that we see repeated over and over in the sources presented from the social media/PR echo chamber. There is zero depth here, and it's a great example of insignificant coverage. VQuakr (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're arguing that it's not sufficient to have coverage in an RS but that the sources used by the RS also have to be RS? What's this based on? If an RS chooses to source info from Insta that's good enough for us. It's just that we don't source directly from Insta. It's a whole article on the guy in an RS. Of course it's significant. Central and Adams (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context matters. WP:RS notes, Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. If a source publishes a puff piece that copies other PR puff pieces in format and content, we can use our common sense to observe that it probably didn't go through a lot of deep fact checking. How about this: what are the three pieces of coverage, independent of the one event of the trafficking accusations, that convinced you that reliable sigcov exists? VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Editorial judgment is the result of discussions, which we're having now. We disagree but, as you admit, it's a matter of opinion rather than of direct application of policy. With regard to your question it's nonsense. Why should there be sources "independent of the one event"? You're either misreading the meaning of independent sources or else misapplying BLP1E. Why don't you explain why three such sources are necessary, in your opinion, to meet GNG? Also, why three? Two is standard for GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, name two. I see zero. Independent to resolve WP:BIO1E concerns (not "misapplying BLP1E"); if the subject's only coverage is related to arrest then it makes more sense to cover the arrest at Andrew Tate. VQuakr (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the word "independent" in BIO1E. It seems to me that you're reaching. What I see is that the existence of a separate article is a matter for editorial judgment, which is the result of discussion, which is what we're doing here. Central and Adams (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. I'm not reaching, I'm applying the guideline. Independent sourcing is necessary to determine if there is sufficient weight of coverage separate from the event. VQuakr (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources are about him in relation to one event, which is already covered on Wikipedia. Textbook WP:BLP1E PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is patently untrue. Some of the sources discuss his television career. Central and Adams (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In significant detail? No. The story is first about the crimes, and an offhand mention that he did something else a decade ago is not significant coverage of his non-crime activities. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindustan Times has an article about how he's the Batman of our times that doesn't even mention his crimes. you're really reaching with the BLP1E claims. That applies to otherwise anonymous people who get caught up in some famous event. You might as well try to delete Mark David Chapman on BLP1E grounds. Central and Adams (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chapman and his motivations have been continually discussed in reliable sources and it's a reasonable split from the main page when the motivations are so personal and culturally discussed. This is a sex trafficking case. By a technical reading of BLP1E you probably *could* try to AfD that (because BLP1E as written is an extremely confusing policy but I digress).
That article is clearly promo, like a lot of Indian journalism they engage in paid reporting (which I think, given how it's written, might be what's going on here) which does not count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you can see that BLP1E would be misapplied in the case of Chapman. You're halfway there. Central and Adams (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really wouldn't. People as is apply BLP1E completely arbitrarily. This is one of its better use cases, IMO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, why bother to invoke a guideline at all if when challenged you say it's completely arbitrary but it's your opinion that it applies here? You're admitting that it's just your opinion. People have different opinions, which is why we discuss deletions. If you think BLP1E would suffice to delete Chapman, a completely indefensible position, the fact that you think it would suffice to delete ANY article carries zero weight. Central and Adams (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still is a guideline, that people use constantly, so I do think it carries weight. A lot of policies aren't set in stone and need to be analyzed per case and situation.
And when there's nothing analyzing his background, no content on the crime specific to him and not his brother, this is a really bad case for ignoring the precedent. Also he isn't even convicted which is a whole other issue when that's the only thing he's known for, WP:BLPCRIME is a different policy
If there was substantial content relating to the scandal which referred to him and not his brother, maybe that would be a justification for a keep. If there was any significant and reliable coverage on his reality TV history or kickboxing, sure, but they're just footnotes. He's covered only for a crime which he hasn't even been convicted of yet. All in all BLP1E exists for a reason, and there's no other notability that justifies pushing it to the side. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E does not even apply here because the following two points do not apply:
  • 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual
  • 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented
Neither of these are true. The event is substantial and documented across a variety of sources, many diving into him specifically. Tristan Tate is certainly not a low-profile individual and almost equally notable as his brother as they rose to fame together. It would be honestly difficult to find many young men who aren't aware of his existence, and sure that is anecdotal but many would agree. Mr Vili talk 21:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All reliable coverage about Tate is in the context of a single thing he did (get accused, not even be convicted of, sex trafficking). We do not have an article on every person who has ever made the news for being accused of sex trafficking. If there was other analysis of him, perhaps that would not apply. There is no reason to have a duplicate page that says all of the same information vis a vis criminal convictions as the page on his far more notable brother. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- here's another source not presently used in the article: [7]. Central and Adams (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was in the article and was removed for being nigh incomprehensible seo spam/unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO I think this article is a case of WP:NEWSORGINDIA from the highly promotional language PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense, it seems like a reliable source where he's called a Batman or James Bond of our time. Mr Vili talk 21:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:NEWSORGINDIA. In numerous generally-reliable Indian publications, you can pay them a bunch of money and they'll run an article proclaiming how great and significant you are. This is, from the language, likely related to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like an obvious puff piece. The tone is way too positive. Andrew is undoubtedly the Batman of the world we live in today. This source does not seem to pass the "independent" criteria of GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It looks like there are some concerted efforts to remove what I would consider relevant and viable sources by the same people voting to Delete which I view counterproductive
Mr Vili talk 20:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP, unreliable sources cannot stay in the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why the section about his children was removed - when Tristan Tate has stated that he has children, and that there were a number of sources claiming he had children Mr Vili talk 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I haven't touched the article, but from checking the edit history it was removed as sourced to sportsbrief which is unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous sources stating that he has two children - many talking about documents from his court case citing that he should be released as he had newborn children while in jail - seems reliable to me, and also reliable for the fact that Tristan has claimed so himself. Mr Vili talk 21:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a non controversial self description I think aboutself would be fine (better than a blatantly incorrect source anyway). If he said it on twitter or in an interview that he has two kids, that can be cited for the article - but that doesn't count for notability just page content. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at this point I think GNG criteria is met, and it just seems like an effort to remove valid sources & statements - even if that specific one was unreliable there are a number of other ones that also state the same thing. Mr Vili talk 21:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just sportsbrief is unreliable and shouldn't be cited in a BLP. The sourcing standards are higher. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider sportsbrief as unreliable? They seem to be a reliable source about sportspeople [8] Mr Vili talk 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsbrief is quite obviously not reliable. Tate is also not a reliable WP:ABOUTSELF source because there can be reasonable doubt about its authenticity. VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's for most things about himself but for something as basic as how many kids he has he would probably be fine, at least in my reading of the policy PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sketchy phrasing and terrible source can be found where I removed them in this diff. Removal of that content seems like an obvious call, but feel free to follow up on the article talk page if you disagree. VQuakr (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, now that I'm looking at the specific case. "believed to have"... lol PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, removing the statement is not the right way to go about it, there are a number of other sources who also touch on his children but I didn't want to go WP:CITEOVERKILL Mr Vili talk 21:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell the source has never been discussed at the reliable source noticeboard, so I guess in theory the jury is still out, but as a rule of thumb on Wikipedia no article with the title "Tristan Tate's height, brother, daughter, net worth, Instagram, and career" is reliable, much less a source for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article with such title makes sense, because its a sports source that covers information about sportspeople Mr Vili talk 21:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it's in every case some badly scraped SEO garbage hastily put together with little human oversight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are an incredibly high number of reliable sources that cover Tristan Tate.[9][10][11] There is no question that this topic passes WP:GNG. desmay (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those sources are reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, friend, drop the WP:STICK. Central and Adams (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed the draft, I was dragged to dispute resolution for giving what was perceived as an incorrect opinion on the draft, now we're here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They literally are pointing out a !vote that cites a deprecated source and you're telling them to drop the stick??? VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr easy mistake, but you are clearly trying your best to remove any source you consider mildly unreliable. It's just as easy to just say "unreliable" to any source as you have been doing. Mr Vili talk 23:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those three sources are remotely reliable for use in a BLP. There is nothing marginal about them. VQuakr (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, how can this subject be any more notable than being talked about by Reuters, BBC, The Independent and dozens of other smaller news outlets, sports news magazines. There's like 4+ hair clinics simply talking about his hair transplant, sources about his kids, sources about his podcasts, sources about his kickboxing, sources about his networth, cars, watches, etc. Hes been interviewed by Piers Morgan, Tucker Carlson, Patrick Bet-david all of which are major media people Mr Vili talk 23:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of high profile criminals who don't have individual articles. The content he is notable for (crime) is already covered in a different article, why duplicate it? Being interviewed is not in all cases a claim to notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The National Review article is not WP:SIGCOV. The-sun.com is not reliable. The Hindustan Times article is not WP:SIGCOV. These three sources do not pass WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another highly notable source from Sky News Australia, while lacking substance, clearly demonstrates notability as a famous person [12] Mr Vili talk 23:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sky News Australia is again, not reliable for BLPs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another highly notable source from abc.net.au [13] covering a legal claim against the woman accusing him of sex trafficing. Mr Vili talk 23:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, primarily about his brother and their (alleged) crimes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's a pretty equal representation of both of them - The title includes Andrew Tate, however the article regularly mentions Tristan Tate, and refers to both of them as the "Tates" Mr Vili talk 01:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's information that's already covered at Andrew Tate#Criminal investigations. To be clear when we're talking about BIO1E we're not saying the legal stuff shouldn't be mentioned at all on Wikipedia; we're saying it's better covered where we have it. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Agree, but there was an "needs update"/"out of date" notice on that section so I thought I'd update it with more recent information. Anyways, i'm pretty much done editing this article as clearly it's controversial, but by the looks it will survive AfD - I wasn't attached to the outcome but I thought it was important to have community-wide consensus on whether this page should exist. Mr Vili talk 02:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on the article itself, but User:Mr vili and desmay, you two aren't just edit warring, you are also using the most questionable of sources in a BLP. You're lucky that Ponyo just protected the article, because somehow I doubt you two would have stopped with those violations. Hindustan Times? Tuko.co.ke - Kenya news? Please. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until such time as the subject is convicted, or otherwise, of the offences he is accused of. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR both apply, meaning "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." As well as " Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." This article was moved from draft when it was not accepted - the Article for Creation process has been disrespected and subverted as a result. Due process should be followed and the article should go back to draft until such time as this person's legal troubles are resolved, and WP:BLPCRIME is no longer an issue. Remember we are building an encyclopedia, not be a news website. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue he meets WP:GNG for things outside of his criminal case (kickboxing, tv show, internet personality/rise to fame, businesses) - I believe AfC is flawed in this process because there are too many emotions due to the controversial nature so I believe getting wider consensus on this is important. Mr Vili talk 06:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no sources that back that position up. All the reliable sources mention first and foremost "he has been accused of a crime", then an offhand mention he did something else years ago. Also, you did get wider consensus, it got rejected seven times. It was flagrantly unfit for main space as a BLP, a contentious topic, which you ignored. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel like he's certainly notable enough for his own article, and although the page needs a bit of clean up source-wise I feel like it's not a major issue and that it could easily be solved. If I have any free time available I might be able to help add references. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – very popular person in the press. Sources not relating to the arrest so not a BLP1E. Why not keep it? Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 19:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup is needed. I see that a lot of delete votes here are based on the fact that his brother Andrew Tate is the subject of most of the sourcing here, and that a lot of the sourcing is not super WP:RELIABLE. I would like to point out this article from Reuters, a highly reliable source that also assumes readers know who Tristan is. That is the main contributor to notability for me. While the other sources used are reliable sources that only mention Tristan in the context of Andrew, or are WP:SIGCOV but not fully reliable, they still marginally contribute to notability. A source table could be helpful here. TLAtlak 03:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From my experience, there is no "marginally contribute to notability". A source either meets all the criteria of gng (reliable, sigcov, independent, secondary), or it does not. In the case of the reuters article, it is close, but may fail sigcov. Adding an enter after every sentence is a common trick news agencies use to make articles look longer. If you take the enters out of the reuters article, it is actually quite short. Shorter than the 3 meaty paragraphs i usually look for when evaluating sigcov. Please see also WP:NOTINHERITED. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the Template:Source assess table (the yellow boxes [partial]). I'll prepare that for this AfD just because there has been so much controversial votes with the topic. I guess the Reuters article could have issues with WP:SIGCOV, but I'll see what else comes up.
    I spoke with the @Mr vili about WP:NOTINHERITED before they moved it to the mainspace, but upon further thinking there is an argument for independent notability here. I'm going to keep my vote for now. TLAtlak 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to cut out the sources that are clearly nonWP:RELIABLE or simply about Andrew Tate, his brother.
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/ Yes Yes Rolling Stone is a high quality source in the field of culture. Yes 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/ Yes Yes ~ 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 Yes Yes 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 Yes Yes Presumably No 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 Yes Yes No 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}}.

TLAtlak 08:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/who-is-tristan-tate-andrew-tates-brother-and-the-james-bond-outside-of-the-matrix-101687690324588.html
What about this source, it's a bit promotional but does seem like significant coverage Mr Vili talk 10:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://news.sky.com/story/football-club-defends-decision-to-refund-5-000-donation-from-andrew-and-tristan-tate-13051077
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65144651
Would be also useful to add these to the source assessment table, since they both seem independent and reliable - but the first may not be WP:SIGCOV Mr Vili talk 10:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the football refund on sky news does seem like SIGCOV but I'd be curious to hear other's thoughts Mr Vili talk 11:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/piers-morgan/im-happy-for-him-tristan-tate-discusses-his-brother-andrews-conversion-to-islam/video/8c96a0b7f620fb64b3671f3fe71dbab8
I'll note this source. The article is a bit small, but there is a video of the interview with Piers Morgan in the article, which might be considered WP:SIGCOV? Mr Vili talk 10:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not meet any of independent, secondary, or SIGCOV (it is 100% reporting what Tate said, not providing analytic commentary on Tate), and additionally fails BLP as it is labeled "opinion", which is not acceptable as RS. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr vili I'll assess Hindustan Times later.
The Sky News and BBC article is WP:RELIABLE and WP:INDEPENDENT but very far from significant coverage. Tristan is essentially just quoted. As mentioned already by @PARAKANYAA is only partially reliable, and that is a WP:INTERVIEW and WP:RSOPINION. TLAtlak 16:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record you can't "partially" contribute to notability, as far as I'm aware - it can be verifiable for the contents, but for when we're deciding whether an article is appropriate to have, it either counts or it doesn't. Otherwise I agree with your assessment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sourcing for a BLP who is only notable for a crime -- and an incredibly serious and contentious crime at that -- must be exceptional. BLP1E is supposed to guide whether an article on a notable topic should focus on the person or on the event when either already meets GNG; it is not per se criteria for establishing GNG for the topic itself. In this case, we do not have the significant IRS coverage of Tristan to meet GNG, but even if we did, BLP1E would advise against a biography because the sources are all in the same context, and SUSTAINED would also be failed for the same reason.
    The Reuters piece is primary news reporting, not secondary analysis of the subject, and anyway is far from SIGCOV of Tristan Red XN. The Independent piece is one of those tabloidy bio-lists where info is scraped from social media with no secondary contextualization Red XN. The Rolling Stone article on his brother contains very little secondary independent content on Tristan; virtually everything about him is in the form of quotes (with or without quotation marks) Red XN. If these are the three best sources on Tristan then they fall very short of GNG and objectively fail SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Al Jazeera article, while headlines his brother, does cover Tristan Significantly Mr Vili talk 02:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr vili could you provide a link? As well, I don't think this really meets WP:BLP1E, which has three conditions noted. TLAtlak 02:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It talks about his son born in jail, quotes and the article often refers to both of them as the "Tate brothers" https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/1/online-influencer-andrew-tate-moved-to-house-arrest-in-romania Mr Vili talk 06:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehh that's probably between partial and not WP:SIGCOV, it basically just has a quote from Tristan. It can be used for verification for sure though (fact that Tristan has a baby son who was born after his arrest. TLAtlak 06:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is purely a passing mention, not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to disagree, its SIGCOV of both of the brothers, just because Tristan Tate is mentioned by name a few times, he is mentioned as the tate brothers many more times Mr Vili talk 23:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SIGCOV requires coverage to be direct and in detail. A news piece on the Tate brothers' detention is not detailed coverage of Tristan directly; the only place where any secondary info directly on him appears is in the single sentence about his having a son, which is not significant. But even if this was SIGCOV, it squarely fails SUSTAINED and, as a news item, is not secondary. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    News items are usually considered secondary on wikipedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when they simply report the events and don't offer secondary commentary. All but one of the details on Tate in the above source are relaying news updates. JoelleJay (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP1E is primarily for deciding whether a topic that is already considered notable should be a biography or an event page. Failing to meet any of the BLP1E criteria does not mean a BLP actually meets the SUSTAINED requirement for notability, it just means that if they are found to be notable a biography would be acceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Andrew and Tristan are equally notable at this point. —theMainLogan (t•c) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: The reason for this article being brought to AfD is bizarre, and the circumstantial history leading us here (including whatever went on at AfC) is more a hindrance than a help to assessing this article's suitability for Wikipedia. The article seems to have undergone substantial editing since its nomination, particularly regarding the quality of its sources. I happen to think this article probably should be redirected or merged per WP:BIO1E, but a fresh AfD, even if immediately after this one, brought forward by someone who can actually make a strong case for the article to be deleted, not by a keep-sniper, will be more helpful for understanding consensus than this AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To summarize:
    • This article was created in mainspace, before it was moved to draft space for quality/notability issues, where there was a history of sockpuppetry trying to get it into mainspace
    • The draft was submitted and declined six times
    • Mr vili, an unrelated editor, decided that this was decent quality for mainspace, and submitted it for the seventh time
    • I disagreed, given that it had numerous unreliable sources cited on a BLP, cited very few reliable sources, and ran afoul of several guidelines on notability including BLPCRIME, BLP1E, WP:SUSTAINED, and didn't seem to evidence the notability outside of being the other Tate's brother, and declined it
    • I was taken to dispute resolution for declining the draft
    • Robert, though agreeing it was not ready for mainspace, accepted the draft under the conditions that it be immediately taken to AfD
    • <-- WE ARE HERE
    PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May I add that the only sockpuppet I could find that edited the draft was Chocobiscuits. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I don't believe Tristan Tate is notable for a single event, he was widely known prior to his arrests as an internet celebrity alongside his brother, he additionally also starred on a reality TV show and was a european kickboxer.
    But yes, I agree that the AfD got messy and was created in a bizarre way, I have no issue with someone re-nominating this for deletion, but I believe that due to the controversial nature, it must involve greater community consensus. Mr Vili talk 05:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, you believe that, but not a single source presented backs up notability on the basis of internet celebrity or kickboxing. Every reliable source that discusses him says, first and foremost, and he has been accused of a crime. It doesn't matter if he did the things if the reliable sources don't focus on them - he doesn't even pass notability based on crime PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability aside, what is unique to Tristan in the present article can be summarised in a paragraph and merged with Andrew Tate. There isn't altogether that much to justify a standalone article. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems very odd to put Tristan Tate in an article about his brother when they are almost equally well known. If anything at worst there would be a page like Wright brothers Mr Vili talk 09:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they are almost equally well known by a long way. Just skim reading the titles of the sources in the article shows that. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a notable topic. He is an influencer and just like the other influencers there should be an article for him too. But the article needs work tho.Sadsadas (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: GNG is present. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I previously thought GNG was present, but based on the source table above, there is only one article with significant coverage of the subject - not multiple as required for notability. Should be redirected to 2022–present Romanian investigation per WP:BLP1E.
  • Delete and redirect to Andrew Tate per WP:BLP1E; no depth of coverage beyond criminal investigation mention. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tristan Tate is one of the most recognizable faces in the media today, as suggested by IgnatiusofLondon. Given the abundance of sources that others have offered here, this topic easily passes WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (that wasn't me) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2024 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tristan_Tate_(2nd_nomination)