Talk:Martin Tripp

Requesting time to fix article and prevent deletion

• I am researching a topic that is linked to Martin Tripp's leak and can do my best to transform this article from libelous to strictly factual. Please grant me about a week to do so before considering deletion. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion

Forgive my ignorance, but where can I find a link to the deletion discussion? Ditch ∝ 15:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Currently there isn't. The current tag is for an uncontested delete. If no one removes the tag the article will be deleted. If someone removes the tag then the next steps are do nothing (it stays) or open a deletion discussion. In this case if the tag is removed I will open a deletion discussion since I find it distasteful (and almost certainly a BLP violation) to have an article largely filled with accusations against an otherwise unknown person. Springee (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. It does concern me that this article will continue to exist during the waiting period, as it seems to be a rather run-of-the-mill personnel issue (disgruntled/concerned worker airing his company's dirty laundry) that got put under the media-microscope because of the collective fascination with all things Tesla/Musk. But I suppose processes have to be followed. I am hardly an expert on WP procedures when it comes to this type of thing. Ditch ∝ 05:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There are a range of different methods for deleting an article, and which one to use is in part a judgement call. This article doesn't meet the (very strict) criteria for WP:SPEEDY deletion, so it's a choice between WP:AFD and hoping for a rapid closure and the WP:PROD route adopted here. There are advantages and disadvantages in both approaches, but for now we just let the clock run. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the deletion tag. I think Tripp, especially considering the whistleblower complaint and subsequent defamation lawsuit that he filed, clearly meets the criteria for notability. I propose improving the article to better reflect the published sources. Right now it's clearly quite biased, with so much of the article devoted to Tesla's accusations. I'll make an initial edit shortly, and look forward to improving the article together.

I guess another option would be to merge the article with List_of_lawsuits_and_controversies_of_Tesla,_Inc., to highlight the fact that this is notable because of the initial whistleblower complaint rather than Tesla's subsequent (and apparently baseless) accusations. Stonkaments (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new here and didn't understand the strict guidelines for WP:BLP at first. I've now made a preliminary edit that I think got rid of all of the most contentious and objectionable material, as well as removed a few questionable sources. I hope that helps, and I would still support merging the article with List_of_lawsuits_and_controversies_of_Tesla,_Inc. if the community prefers that. Stonkaments (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to make this more neutral but basically this article as an article about Tripp shouldn't exist. The Tripp incident likely should exist somwhere on a Tesla related article. I'm going to send this to a deletion discussion next. Springee (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)