Talk:Trisha Paytas/Archive 1

Not notable
It's hard to see why this person merits a Wikipedia article. She's a model who has a YouTube channel and has been on an afternoon TV talk show (ugh), but there are so many people like that. In my view that doesn't make her notable. This seems like a candidate for deletion. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

FETISH MODEL
Reality is that Trisha has never been a 'standard' plus size model, vast majority of her work was glamour/erotic or fetish. Evidence of this is in her portfolio on model mayhem http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/1021856/viewall Article doesn't mention this and should reflect the true nature of her career.

Fastest talker
According to Guiness Trisha Paytas is not the worlds faster talker. She didn't to break the record on Guinness World Records Unleashed (6 Nov. 2013)

The record "speaking 710 words in 54 seconds" is a myth. There is no evidence can prove it. In fact, she only spoke 34 seconds in the Ellen DeGeneres Show clip and it never says how many words she spoke.

I don't think her modelmayhem profile is really suitable evidence of cats.

I'd delete the entry, but I'm sure that would start an editing war. 124.168.84.223 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I deleted this poorly sourced material. --Malerooster (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced material
There is quite a bit of unsourced material. Can any material being added going forward please include citations? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable soures?
Is the daily mail a reliable source? I forget which British tabloids are which. Also the Huffington post is not a reliable source for facts, but is ok for opinions which are attributed to it, right? --Malerooster (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Videography
I came across Trisha Paytas videography on new pages patrol. Does this really merit its own article?? My initial instinct was CSD, then to merge the content back here; but since someone's gone to the effort of splitting it off, we'd better discuss first. Pinging. GoldenRing (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Protection Request After Constant Vandalism
--Sweden Rocks hard (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Promotional content
Editors evidently connected with the subject are getting out of hand with promotional content. If this continues, an admin will be asked to lock this article from being edited. Please read WP:PROMOTIONAL, WP:TONE, WP:DATED, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SOCK and I'm sure other policies/guidelines being violated.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus violation
Consensus discussion in August 2015 resulted in a decision to merge this article with Trisha Paytas. The following June, some fan or WP:COI editor, User:Sweden Rocks hard, blatantly and unilaterally violated that consensus and recreated that page. That is unacceptable behavior and can result in administrator sanctions against that editor or any other editor unilaterally violating a merge consensus. I am restoring the merge and caution promotionally minded editors to respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * An editor blatantly disregarded community consensus from 2015 at Articles for deletion/Trisha Paytas discography and from last month at Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Trisha Paytas, which called for merging those spinoffs into this main article. But that editor unilaterally restored the discography article in what seems one more frequent instance of the subject's friends or fans attempting to use Wikipedia promotionally on the subject's behalf. I've restored the version that reached consensus in two different discussions.


 * That editor also used disallowed, non-RS cites from the Daily Mail and the WP:USERGENERATED Classmates.com. As well, he or she added promotional language and a host of uncited claims — including that the subject purportedly appeared in a Beverly Hills Cop TV-movie that never aired, so we're just taking that editor's word for it.


 * I did not revert all the editor's work; where he or she added citations or pertinent additional cited information, that certainly stayed. I would note that with a US subject, we use US dates, i.e. September 18, 2017, and not 18 September 2017. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)