Talk:Tati Westbrook

Many problems

Hopefully this will keep things simple and avoid bureaucracy. Since this article was recently nominated for deletion, and there was only one reliable source, I have reverted this to a redirect. Wikipedia has polices for how we deal with living people. Please review WP:BLP.

I would also recommend looking at WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NBIO before planning to restore this. Then, if all of those can be met, consider going through WP:AFC to make sure this isn't removed again. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that didn't work. Oh well. Once Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Charles & Tati Controversy this can be reevaluated based on existing sources, but that will have to happen soon. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I have re-tagged this for notability. While I know it could easily have more than the two sources it does now, as far as I can see all of those sources would be WP:BLP1E for the video about the other youtuber. If there are sources about something else, they should be used to support additional content. This isn't really enough to hang a BLP on, so more sources should be added to explain why this person is encyclopedically noteworthy. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I generally find the notability template useless, since it adds a huge ugly box at the beginning of the article and, because normal readers who don’t edit Wikipedia couldn’t care less if an article meets our notability standards or not. I would instead suggest opting for a merge discussion into James Charles (Internet personality)#Controversies when the dust settles.—NØ 07:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. I am keeping an eye on both. For now, I'm not convinced this article isn't notable, but the sources aren't here yet. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because, given the breadth and depth of sources, the topic could be notable. Please note that her public exposure and ratings have drastically increased after the deletion procedure, making it not particularly relevant. --gidonb (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

reversion

I reverted to an earlier version because the good-faith edits in between removed content added by vandals but didn't restore content removed by vandals --valereee (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing challenge for subscriber counts

I put in references from Social Blade, a site which seems committed to providing ongoing subscriber numbers for youtube channels (although they need to work on their future prediction algorithms a bit).

But while the numbers are very clear today, they will eventually fade out of the 'current' status they currently hold. My problem is that there are some very clear timelines (May 10 and 17, and to a lesser extent 15) but because of the nature of this story, nobody waited that long to publish and nobody is publishing after that date. I can't find a way to fix a range and create a link on the Social Blade site (see example below). Does anyone know of a way to encapsulate the subscriber data in such a manner? Or provide a link to a reputable source who has published that full date range of numbers?

For example, if you were collecting hitting stats for Vlad Guerrero Jr.: Vladimir Guerrero Jr. Batting Gamelogs for Career Games 11 to 17

While I obviously believe the article should be speedily deleted, it should at least be as good as possible. Thanks. ogenstein (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

considered by whom

Ritchie333, would "According to Newsweek, she is widely considered..." work for you? It just seemed like this was a strong enough statement in the sections that would justify inclusion in the lead. --valereee (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

What does that statement even mean? Those are unsupported attributions aka, weasel words. It's in the article because the writer is trying to manufacture meaning. The gossip/culture articles on the site are clickbait. For example, among the list of 'related articles' is this one: "Laura Lee vs. James Charles: Twitter Debates Who Had the Worst Apology". That aside, the statement lacks credibility, doesn't actually mean anything and shouldn't be used unless it can be attributed meaningfully. A statement that can't be challenged shouldn't be used to try and give the subject meaning. ogenstein (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Mothman, well, it's an argument. Are you questioning Newsweek as RS? --valereee (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Valereee… Generally reliable means 'reliable in most cases'. It does not mean follow blindly. I don't think that because a source is labelled as 'generally reliable' that we should accept every word on their site as though it's the gospel.

Specific to the statement, there isn't any serious meaning to the their statement on the subject. It's simply WP:PUFFERY. What exactly is being reported on? It is vague blandishment.

Specific to Newsweek, this isn't an argument to reject them as a source out of hand. We should however, consider that they don't perform fact-checking anymore, and that the web site is under new ownership so we don't have much of a track record regarding their accuracy or quality. In general, gossip pages should always be examined closely. As per WP:GREL, editors should analyse how much weight to give a source and how to describe its statements.

As some others have commented, it wouldn't be such a struggle to write this article up to more than a stub if there was some underlying substance to work with. Thanks. ogenstein (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I think for the minute, since the article only has about 1,200 characters of prose, that the lead is about right. If we can expand the body of the article, and show more accolades and achievements, the lead can then be updated to follow suit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! --valereee (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected the article for a week, in addition to the existing pending changes. It should keep the reverts down a bit. As ever, if any admin disagrees, just unprotect without feeling you need to ask for my permission. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Blatant advertising

This entry has been edited a few times by users to include promotion of products. This is an encyclopaedic entry about an individual who also is an entrepreneur. This has been stated. There is no need to promote individual products from Westbrook's main business, as this is not a promotional or PR publicity page for her company. The name of the company is included as well as her earnings with verifiable sources. Product promotion and non NPOV advertising should not be included. HelloHanSolo (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding James Charles' 2021 Drama

It should be added that much of her things that she adressed were eventually proven right due to the allegations from Isaiyah and the other boys and James' 2 videos regarding the dramas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodguyas (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)