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 84.46.53.255 (talk) at 04:39, 17 January 2020 (→Kent Tate: updated my misleading reply). 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]
  •  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]
 Comment: Okay, food for thought @JBW:Kent tate (talk) 23:22, 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]
  • (changed !vote, see below) Neutral, also known as "meh". For the Kent Tate article, he fails WP:ARTIST on all counts. Most coverage is of the calibre of this example coverage in Yorkton This Week. He's eligible for an article as there is a lot of this low-level coverage, and there are some articles in old Canadian art magazines like Parallelogramme and Vanguard. On the upside he was mentioned in Performance in Canada by Clive Robertson, although that is the only serious book mention I saw, and that book mentions practically every performance-type artist in Canada. However if this was to be deleted we would only be losing a very marginally notable artist. There are thousands of Canadian artists with similar profiles (showed at one or two decent galleries, had a half dozen published reviews) who do not have articles. The COI does not help either, in the sense that it shows a promotional intent for the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: @ThatMontrealIP:. Yes, I agree with you about this "marginally notable" article. It should be deleted because the subject "fails WP:ARTIST on all counts" as you mentioned with a COI that "does not help either".Kent tate (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we are talking about the GNG guideline now. Might still be notable enough for an article. Also, the article subject's thoughts on their own notability are irrelevant here. We figure that out by independent means, so no need to comment on your own notability. ThanksThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried to help with putting together the edit requests in question although it was mostly on the technical side. I don't remember expressing any strong opinions about anything.
    By my reading, what the COI editor wanted to include were a more complete timeline of the subject's career, some direct quotes from among the reviews and a table of filmography. Each of the requests was declined for supporting sources being not independent enough or not independent at all. The discussion about the suitability of non-independent sources is ongoing at the article's talk page. The second question would be, which of the sources in the article unequivocally qualify as independent sigcov to support keeping the article despite the subject's wishes, and which of them don't. The COI editor wants to expand the article. The declination of requests says that the supporting refs are not independent. If any of the refs are not good enough for expanding the article, it follows that these sources do not meet the requirements of GNG, as GNG is built on the assumption that a certain number of independent sigcov is usually required to build a decent article on the subject, irrespective of editor motivation. So, either we delete the article because the subject isn't clearly Wikipedia notable or we identify a few SIGCOVs that the COI editor can be told can be used for building a decent article on the subject. If we are evaulating the subject's notability on GNG basis only which it seems we are now, they should be sources that support expanding the article, at least to some extent, as currently the article is barely start class. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to delete, after seeing the massive amount of editor time User: LorriBrown has wasted over at the talk page. This is such a marginal case of notability that the COI editing pushes it over the edge. Not the usual deletion rationale, just a fact. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Yes to fact and time, but for comparison I spent 90% of my enwiki time since December 2018 on GA quests for two BLPs with two auxiliary AFCs. Pending reviews + GOCE + GA1 were also time consuming not only for me, that has nothing to do with the deletion policy. –84.46.53.255 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC) (added for comparison after the following reply, sorry: 84.46.53.255 (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
IP, I was going to leave a message on your talk page, but since your 84.46.*.* IP has changed five times on this page alone, I wasn't sure you would see it. The above comment was not about you. It was about how much editor time User LorriBrown wastes on the minutiae on Ken Tate.23:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this as the actual !voters are relatively balanced and there is a huge amount of discussion, including recently. If it suddenly becomes clearly one-sided in the next couple of days, I'm happy to be contacted for an early close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kent_Tate&oldid=936179153"