Talk:Rollo Tomassi

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good start

North8000 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I do not believe that Rollo Tomassi meets the minimum criteria for WP:NBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. I can open a deletion discussion on these criteria, but thought it would be better to start here and see if appropriate sources to demonstrate notability can be found. I think a key issue is that Tomassi is the subject of interest in online domains, which can be challenging to demonstrate. Nonetheless, some standard of notability must be shown. My arguments are lack of reliable coverage and failure to meet WP:NAUTHOR criteria. In terms of lack of "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The current citations are:

Coverage of his appearance of Dr. Phil-- passes
A podcast interview-- not independent or reliable
The subject's website-- not independent
The Washington Examiner article-- listed as dubious on WP:RSP but I would say passes
A trivial mention in the NYT-- not WP:SIGCOV
The subject's YouTube channel-- not independent
A Dr. Phil appearance -- not independent or reliable

That leaves two sources that can be used to argue notability. In terms of WP:NAUTHOR, all of Tomassi's books are self-published, already straining traditional recognition of authorship. The strongest argument for passing would be "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique," but to determine if his concepts, theories, or techniques are significant I would want to see multiple notable sources crediting him as originating the "manosphere" and subsequent significant coverage of it. I have not found any, and would thus argue that the WP:NBIO template should stay up until they can be demonstrated. I'm also happy to go straight to a deletion discussion to settle it. Vegantics (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vegantics, thanks for opening this discussion. First, per WP:BOLD, you were bold in adding a notability tag and that was reverted in line with WP:BRD, as the tag was added without clear rationale in the edit summary. Your subsequent revert of that revert, made without prior discussion or consensus, could raise concerns. Given that, I kindly ask you to consider self-reverting so we can begin this discussion. If we remain at an impasse after discussion, the appropriate next steps could include a RFC or potentially a deletion discussion, but it's best we explore sourcing and consensus first. Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 08:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Olympian, I view adding a WP:NBIO template as the first step in gaining consensus on the notability of a Wikipedia article as it creates public awareness of the concern. I felt that my edit summary, "Fails WP:NAUTHOR," although concise, effectively indicated why I added it. Had there not been any objections, I would have eventually moved forward with a merge, redirect, or deletion. Reverting an edit is best done only when necessary and since you presumably viewed it as such, there was clearly disagreement on the matter. In response I created this discussion, but chose to re-implement the template so that other interested editors could see that there was need for discussion. Without the maintenance template, we reduce the chance of additional perspectives and ability to build consensus. I did sincerely consider your request and I hope that you are still willing to engage in this discussion without me self-reverting.

I'm comfortable with not following WP:BRD given that it is an optional approach and there are benefits to having the template, but I do appreciate the reminder to engage with care and diplomacy. I also recognize that I was hasty in proposing a deletion discussion as the alternate resolution-- although BLP articles that fail WP:NBIO should not be on Wikipedia, there are alternatives to deletion and I failed to recognize that. If we cannot find agreement, I support using WP:RFC or an alternate WP:DRR approach. Best, Vegantics (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]