Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Charles & Tati Controversy


 * 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. Tone 19:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

James Charles & Tati Controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable indecent. The feud is only reported by non-reliable sources including DailyMail, Metro, etc. CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You may want to look up No true Scotsman. 202.36.244.29 (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, this is a big deal and is worthy of a Wikipedia article just as much as Instagram egg or PewDiePie vs T-Series. Jayab314  13:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The feud also has articles from Cosmopolitan and E! Online. Jayab314  13:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * DELETE This article's topic does not seem to be encyclopedic or meet WP:NOTNEWS. Certain events like KSI vs Logan Paul or PewDiePie vs T-Series are noteworthy but this is not; every internet feud and occurrence cannot be documented. This articles sources also include a Buzz-Feed article, a you tube video by one of the content creators in question (which probably violates WP:NEUTRAL), and two different subscriber-Count tables from the same website.Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have to argue that this is noteworthy. Not every controversy you see on YouTube results in millions of subscribers being lost or gained. Also, I added in James' apology video and some more information about that in order to maybe not seem so biased. There are two different subscriber counts from the same website because it's documenting the loss in subscribers for James and the gain in subscribers for Tati. Jayab314  15:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, I mean absolutely no offense by this but this article does seem a bit risible, and the fact that this entry exists may be somewhat problematic. I understand what it feels like as an editor to have an article that you started be nominated for deletion, it has happened to me, but ultimately, those editors who are most committed to seeing Wikipedia improve are OK with their contributions being critiqued. So far I have not seen any substantial reason why this entry should be kept after numerous guidelines such as WP:GOSSIP,WP:NEUTRAL, AND WP:NOTNEWS have been violated or brought into question. Unfortunately, suggesting that the addition of another you tube video which is just biased in favor of the other side does not negate the violation of WP:NEUTRAL. I am not however saying that this topic is not notable, I keep hearing "Largest subscriber drop ever" so it very well may be; however, a topic being notable doesn't mean "Keep it around and we'll try to fix the other stuff", because many times that "other stuff" cannot be fixed.Grapefruit17 (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Before someone asks what I meant by "other stuff" above. I meant 1.) the writing of this entry as if it were news, 2.) the inability to find reliable sources which allow it to be told from a neutral point of view, and 3.) the inability to find reliable sources which allow this to be told as if it were not gossip. I'm sure there are more.Grapefruit17 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, NOTNEWS. "Feud" is entirely too strong a word over a one time incident, btw. Not every slap fight on the interwebs is worthy of an article. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortpio (talk • contribs)
 * This article should not be deleted until 12th of May, because the situation may lead to the biggest loss of subscribers ever on YouTube, which is a notable fact itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliette Han (talk • contribs)
 * Keeping the article until May 12 is not really a concern. This deletion discussion would normally be scheduled to run for a week, until May 18. If you think that the article should remain on Wikipedia for the long term, you should provide reasons to "keep" the article, and if you think the article should be deleted on or after May 18, you should provide reasons to "delete" the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Wikipedia is not TMZ. This is an embarrassment. Trillfendi (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be TMZ, I'm trying to document the largest drop in subscribers in YouTube's history, have a backstory, and document the reasons, public reactions, and the daily stats. If you want, can you please tell me specifically what I should change in order to redeem the article? Jayab314  17:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Wikipedia is a good place for the blow-by-blow, live-reporting type thing that you seem to be aiming for. As stated at the very top of the section for encyclopedic content, Wikipedia is more about collecting a summary of newsworthy events, not every single little detail. I personally see Wikipedia as the launching point, where you learn enough about a subject here to get an understanding of it, and you go to other websites to get further into the details. The Wikipedia articles for James Charles and Tati (the latter of which doesn't even currently have an article) are good enough places to get an understanding of who they are, and get an idea of this controversy, but getting down into the details of what's happening day by day—such as live subscriber counts—is probably best reserved for another website. JaykeBird (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback; however, I drew a lot of inspiration from the PewDiePie vs T-Series article, which includes live subscriber counts and every single time the title of most-subscribed YouTuber switched hands. As for Tati not having an article, the WP:NOTNEWS states, "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." I am not putting every single detail, in fact, I am leaving a lot out of it, but I am collecting the important facts and discussing how it can be seen from both sides by including sections about both videos. Jayab314  19:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that I reflect a bit more and re-read through it, I think my biggest issue in regards to "too much detail" is that ever-growing list of people who unfollowed James Charles. Beyond that, rereading through it all, I think it's fine (and indeed, may be lacking some detail—as you said— in regards to background to this situation/their relationship, and the larger (news) response). I mentioned that Tati did not have an article as a side note to my comment that this may be better represented in the persons's articles, but your quote from WP:NOTNEWS is a good thing to keep in mind. I did change my opinion to Merge rather than Delete. JaykeBird (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as per all above. Not notable enough for own article. ECW03 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete This article was very informative I really really needed to know why James Charles was losing subs and this article literally saved my life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.201.107 (talk • contribs)
 * From WP:AFD: please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or move to user space Merge with James Charles (model). At this point, I don't see this being anything more newsworthy than any other entertainer/YouTuber drama. If it grows to be something larger that catches the general populace or has a profound impact on internet culture, we can cross that bridge then. Right here and now though, I don't think that's happened. Instead, this controversy/drama can be kept as a section in the respective people's articles. JaykeBird (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've decided to change my opinion from delete to merge. I think by now my comment on "grows to be something larger that catches the general populace" has happened now, in social media and news publications. I still feel on the fence about it needing a dedicated article, but I do believe it should be represented somewhere on Wikipedia, and so merging into an already existing article seems like a good idea to me. If the incident's noteworthiness grows even more, it can always be moved back into its own article later. JaykeBird (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to James Charles (model) where this incident is already mentioned. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck redirecting to James Charles (model), that article has issues and this would only worsen that.Grapefruit17 (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While I totally agree that the article does need a decent amount of work, I also like to follow by the idea of Wikipedia is never finished. Especially if we trim some of the fat from this controversy article, it can at least be a start to have one decent-looking section in that article, and could serve as a launching point to continue from there. JaykeBird (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This article demeans us all. EuroAgurbash (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? Jayab314  20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - A "feud" (wouldn’t even classify this as one) between two "YouTubers" does not belong on an encyclopaedia. Don’t bother relying to me with otherstuffexists arguments, I'd vote to delete those as well.—NØ 20:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable internet drama that is certainly not worthy of its own article beyond a section within James' own article. What a low point for this project. -- Acefitt 21:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable internet feud, just add a section to the relevant articles. This is an embarrassment of an article. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I please ask everyone why this article is "such an embarassment of an article" and "a low point for this project"? This is a record loss of subscribers. It's an embarrasment to everyone because it's in the makeup and beauty part of YouTube. This is trending on all social media, became a meme instantly, and is a record-breaking moment. Also, I realized it isn't a feud hours ago and changed it to what it was, a controversy. If this gets deleted, so should PewDiePie vs T-Series or KSI vs Logan Paul. Jayab314  00:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Trending on social media has never been the metric of notability for an encyclopedia. -- Acefitt 01:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it certainly was for PewDiePie vs T-Series. Jayab314  09:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already explained why this entry is not even close to comparable with PewDiePie vs T-Series or KSI vs Logan Paul. Those two entries are well documented from reliable sources, told from a neutral point of view, are unquestionably notable, are not delivered as if they are news, etc. This article has huge issues which are seemingly not salvageable; making an otherstuffexists argument won't work here. Grapefruit17 (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep – this is a notable event, resulting in the loss/gain of millions of subscribers, with reliable sources to back this information up. In regards to this article being an "embarrassment", I can think of several more embarrassing articles. This is a notable event, period. – DarkGlow (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The embarrassment is treating Wikipedia like the Daily Mail or The Shade Room. At best this should perhaps be a blip on James Charles’s article. In the end, his loss of followers isn’t generally relevant. Followers aren’t a stock market. Trillfendi (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – per above. There is no notability and involves useless YouTube drama that Wikipedia doesn't need. Callmemirela  &#127809; talk 00:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Let's wait and see if reliable sources will still be talking about this in a few weeks time. CoolSkittle  (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear example of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT.LM2000 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I would agree that this violates WP:10YT per above. PewDiePie vs T-Series and other such articles may also have trouble passing WP:10YT but they're not taking all of the other baggage that this entry has i.e failing WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:N and WP:GOSSIP.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Now a sky news https://news.sky.com/story/youtube-star-james-charles-loses-2m-subscribers-after-row-with-fellow-vlogger-11718184 and BBC news article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-48243905 ECW03 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * *sigh* BBC Newsbeat is their version of Page Six. This isn’t actual BBC News calibre reporting in any dimension. That section is for lowly gossip. Trillfendi (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Trillfendi is right. Unfortunately, using more news articles as sources may increase this article's apparent notability but does nothing to help the fact that WP:NOTNEWS has been brought into question. If anything, using more news will probably just make this entry read even more like gossip.Grapefruit17 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is huge! there has barely been a feud like this ever! People could search up "Who's lost the most YouTube subs?" and have trouble finding it. But now they can see it with this Wikipedia article. But if it is going to be deleted, we should put this in the article of James Charles. Possibly a whole article of most subcribers lost and maybe even one with most subs in one day. This is historical for YouTube. I'm just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.89.197.83 (talk • contribs)
 * I would disagree about this topic's notability but I would agree that after a hypothetical deletion of this entry we could put some of the information in James Charles. James Charles should also be improved before anything is added as it has multiple issues.Grapefruit17 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTNEWS ☣Yutsi — Talk/Edits 18:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with James Charles (model). The incident is notable due to the massive loss of subscribers (being reported on by BBC, CNN , Newsweek , and Yahoo )  Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖  19:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge While it's not notable enough to be a standalone article, it's notable enough to the main article (James Charles (model). Rob3512   chat?   what I did   20:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Author: Merge or Delete - After reading and listening to everything mention, I do agree it is only notable for the two records. It does violate multiple rules so we would have to reword and delete a lot of it before it can be merged. Jayab314  22:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see why this has to be its own article. It is much better off as a section of James's own page. CrispyCream27  (Talk) 01:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge/Rename to Tati Westbrook (keep). I don't think this affair has lasting value but it can be mentioned in both articles. Looking around some more, I was surprised to find that Tati Westbrook doesn't have an article yet. She passes the WP:GNG. This one can be renamed to the missing article with a slight rewrite and a lot of trimmimng. gidonb (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. in the meantime a redirect to Tati Westbrook was created. That's why I added the "Merge/" option, similar to Kez below. gidonb (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Chasing after the developments here. In the meantime a Tati Westbrook article was created so my opinion should be read as Merge into Tati Westbrook. Not really changing anything. Just clarifying what my opinion now means. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * DELETE it’s all been said above, but this isn’t news, it would be relevant or useful info in a week, it’s poorly sourced, etc etc. It seems the only people fighting to keep it are the fans of YouTube beefs, and in that case it should be covered on YouTube not a Wikipedia encyclopedia article... TropicAces (talk)tropicAces
 * Delete –  Tati Westbrook does not even have a Wikipedia page, yet, a fringe internet debacle in which she is one of the parties does? This article violates WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SELFPUB, etc. At best, this should of course be mentioned on the corresponding parties' Wikipedia pages but does not deserve its own standalone page. Aviartm (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete As per all above. Total WP:NOTNEWS violation. Wikipedia ≠ tabloid gossip site. talk to ! dave 06:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge/Rename to Tati Westbrook (keep) - as per User:Gidonb, she should clearly have her own page, and this content is notable as per plenty of reputable media coverage, but the controversy itself perhaps is not the encyclopedic bit insomuch as its effects on both YouTubers. I think it worth noting plenty of the delete objections come from a disdain for this as "tabloid gossip", sometimes from editors who do not seem to object to controversies from PewDiePie et al. having extensive pages, and I would wonder how much of a role editor generational and gender bias is playing. -Kez (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that I have to keep bringing up why this entry is not comparable to PewDiePie vs T-Series or Logan Paul vs KSI. Again, those two entries are very well documented, were big news, were told from a neutral point of view from neutral and reliable sources, and were notable without question. Although PewDiePie vs T-Series may seems just an un-encyclopedic as James Charles & Tati Westbrook controversy, that line of notability which we must draw distinguishes one as a more import and dare I say historical event, while the other doesn't even pass WP:10YT. Also, "Generational and Gender bias" is a hypothesis which needs to be verified.Grapefruit17 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate you posting this to reinforce all the points I made. Since this controversy has certainly been “well documented” in mainstream news sources; since “big news” is entirely subjective and if somehow applicable to PewDiePie’s activities clearly also applicable to this; since “reliable” sources such as the BBC, CNN and Sky News have documented this from a “neutral point of view”; since “notable without question” is similarly entirely subjective; and since you offer no evidence that PewDiePie engaging in a light-hearted competition is somehow more “historical” than the impact of this controversy on the multi-billion dollar world of American make-up ‘influencers’. I am now very clear that it is consistent and fair this page kept in some form. -Kez (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kez, It's unclear to me what you mean, I was not suggesting anything other than a merge of this information, after serious trimming, into James Charles. I was merely stating that it would be a mistake to act as though this is comparable to PewDiePie vs T-Series and Logan Paul vs KSI. The reasons why I don't believe they're comparable at this point is because they seem to be on drastically different levels of notability, and because This entry totally fails WP:RECENTISM Just to name two. The fact is, no matter how many seemingly reputable sources cover this event, its transient, flimsy merit will destroy its importance and place on wikipedia. Also, by "historical" I simply meant that something like PewDiePie vs T-Series is quite likely to have a lasting impact while this much smaller squabble will not. We have to stop using otherstuffexists arguments now.Grapefruit17 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. There has been coverage of this in reputable sources, but at most, it should just exist under the James Charles article.Melodies1917 (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Multiple reliable sources have discussed this event in detail, and the aftermath was a loss in three million subscribers - a record for the platform. This seems to be generally notable for now. Toa Nidhiki05 02:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. "For now". GNG requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage, "'" Mkdw ''' talk 19:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Has received notability. Keep and discuss in a few weeks. Nice4What (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable enough for its own article, the content can go on James Charles' page. QueerFilmNerd  talk 05:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge: I think this incident is best to be redirected to the James Charles (Internet personality) section. I agree with on various news coverage like BBC, CNN (and NBC) which makes it good enough to be mentioned in James' article. I am strongly against deleting the page since it adds size to the database. (WP:CHEAP) —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Proverbial tempest in a teapot. Number of youtube subscribers does not equal notability. Every week, someone is going to gain or lose subscribers to whatever forum. Next month a new 'record' will be set. That doesn't make it significant. Fails WP:QSAppearing on a gossip page doesn't either. I don't see a wikipedia page for the BBC article in which he told people to stop showing up at his house, I don't believe that this warrants one either. While the news orgs mentioned are often reliable, the coverage for this crisis is not. As others have mentioned, what other scandal pages exist doesn't rationalize this one WP:INN, WP:OTHER. ogenstein (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I feel like stuff like this should not be on Wikipedia. Fine on other websites, not Wikipedia though. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 21:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I haven't looked at the sources enough to form an opinion, but Tati Westbrook will need some serious attention as well. It had one blatantly unreliable source, which I removed as worse than nothing, and so it now has no sources at all. It was a redirect to the Charles article's subsection, but that's also a BLP issues, so... Grayfell (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Tati Westbrook needs deletion! BLP1E with horrifically amateur and uneducated use of sources including The Sun. The goddamn Sun for crying out loud. Practically the most unreliable source there is. The very fact that this page was created out of YouTube-level controversy rather than actual notability tells you everything you need to know. Again I say, this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Trillfendi (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How is she notable for one event? She's an entrepreneur who had millions of subscribers long before this controversy started. Just because you don't like or have no interest in something, and just because it concerns notable figures in the beauty industry rather than any other industry, that doesn't mean it is non-notable. -Kez (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Notable" doesn't just mean successful or popular. Notability is determined by reliable, independent sources, and right now, every one of the usable sources at that article is about the feud with Charles. If there are reliable sources about her entrepreneurship, they should be added or discussed at that article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Trim and Merge to James Charles, or selectively to Tati Westbrook. Looking at sources, this event is clearly important to a sub-community, but the WP:LASTING impact hasn't been demonstrated. If, over the coming days, weeks, or years, sources are still discussing the significant of going from 16 million+ subs to 13 million+, we can reevaluate. If sources don't continue to talk about this, it will rapidly become more irrelevant until it's inevitably nominated for deletion again. Grayfell (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - A very clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Ceosad (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS and the event has not been able to demonstrate it will have any WP:LASTING impacts. Mkdw  talk 18:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 *  Rename to Tati Westbrook per above.  Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, she's already gotten a page. Never mind. Neutral, but merge instead of delete. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge - not notable enough for its own article, but merge with either Westbrook or Charles.  Grey joy talk 11:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge - with Westbrook.  LALALLALLALAL joy talk 15:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Page, Redirect and Merge  The Content of this article is not worthy enough of its own page. Content should be shared between the James Charles and Tati Westbrook’s pages. East Anglian Regional (talk)
 * Speedy Delete I really couldn't care less about the incident, but the only notable event in this entire thing is James's massive tumble in subscribers, which is almost comparable to when TheFineBros tried to trademark the word "react". A loss of a couple million subscribers by one and a gain of a couple hundred thousand by the other is hardly enough to keep the article alive. Rather, a copy paste of a small chunk of it to a Subheading in either of their wiki pages would be suffice... Cheesy McGee (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete It fails WP:NOTNEWS by a long shot, especially on the "news reports" section. This controversy is only impacting the YouTube society. It will definitely not impact anything world-wide except YouTube.  I Need Support   :3 01:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Something could be added to the James Charles and maybe YouTube articles, but it fails as a stand-alone article. Edwardx (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to James Charles (Internet personality). He is the subject of the controversy. How much to merge to either article is a content matter for the talk pages of those articles. But this is clearly WP:NOTNEWS. w umbolo   ^^^  11:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closer. There are some !votes on talk. w umbolo   ^^^  12:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.