Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollo Tomassi

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. On balance of P&G weight, I see consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollo Tomassi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. All of the subject's books are self-published. Regarding WP:RS/WP:SIGCOV based on the current citations:

Coverage of his appearance of Dr. Phil-- passes (more or less, WP:FOXNEWS)
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

I do recognize that Tomassi is the subject of interest in online domains, which can be challenging to demonstrate. The strongest argument for passing on those grounds would be "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique," but per WP:BEFORE I could not find any notable sources crediting him as originating the "manosphere" or subsequent significant coverage of it. Vegantics (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only semi-RS I can find is Dr. Phil and Fox News, [1] [2], neither shows notability. Sourcing now in the article is primary, or non-RS Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I forgot this guy existed. I think he skirts notability as a commentator and personality, but there doesnt seem to be much sourcing for that. Maybe there is a manosphere article this can be merged into? Metallurgist (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per above nom; I don’t think his TV appearances necessarily pass the thresholds that were originally mentioned.MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that better sources would improve the article but Rollos’s contemporaries, such as Roosh V, have the same type of refs. As for notoriety, the Rational Male book is arguably responsible for the “red pill” world of today. Guys like Tate, Myron Gaines, built (in a poor manner) upon Rollo’s writings, many were guests on his show earlier in 2018 and 2019. Wikisempra (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED, other articles that may be of equally poor quality and connection to other notable figures do not present strong grounds for keeping the article. Vegantics (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see anywhere in the Wikipedia:NAUTHOR guidelines about self publishing being a disqualifying factor. Re: the comment above by Wikisempra, the book (and by extension, it's author) were considered enough of a "bible of the manosphere" to merit inclusion on a talk show about the same subject. Re: Metallurgist comment above, I could see perhaps merging the article about the author into one about the book (if such an article exists, I haven't looked). All that said, I believe the author triggers the "widely cited by peers or successors" guideline of Wikipedia:NAUTHOR as noted above, pretty much all of those writing, blogging, and podcasting in the manosphere space reference Rollo and "The Rational Male". Kabubakawa (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some of these citations? It would be great evidence of WP:N and grounds to keep the article, but I couldn't find any from reliable/notable sources. Vegantics (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Metallurgist. This article also seems unduly positive in a way that shouldn't really be possible for biographical articles, especially not those of Manosphere types actively comparing themselves to the Tates. The sourcing does not fully substantiate those positive claims. RationalWikian (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not a fan of the manosphere, and especially not the Tates, undue positivity concerns would apply to any article and singling these topics out as undeserving is a bit editorializing, even if I pretty much agree. Metallurgist (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.