Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco J. Ricardo

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. Sandstein 19:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco J. Ricardo

[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:GNG/WP:BIO. I am unable to find significant coverage of Francisco J. Ricardo in reliable, third-party published sources. I was able to find plenty of primary sources, storefronts and databases, and some trivial mentions in third-party sources, but there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This appears to be an autobiography. Netherzone (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Or COI. Netherzone (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a combination of autobiography and COI. At User talk:Adrie23, the user indicates: "As a matter of fact, he wrote much of the text himself and provided the article links. I did some editing on that. That should not pose a problem - he is the expert on his thoughts". That was in 2014. The recent flare-up could be a similar set-up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there seems to be something odd going on. The image was "personally given" to the uploader Adrie23 by the article subject; same editor removed COI template, and they apparently had access to their passport information? Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I probably should have nominated this for deletion years ago, but somehow it fell off my radar until the recent obvious COI edits flared up. I don't see any significant coverage about the subject at Google News. The guy only has one IMDb credit, so I'm not even clear on what he would be known for. I'm also concerned that much of the recently-added text from Astridjj are copyright violations, but I can't find the source material. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and BIO, per nom. Also does not pass WP:NARTIST. BTW, IMDb is not considered a reliable source because it is user-generated content, as per guidelines at WP:RSP. Netherzone (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - The film he has released features celebrities James Franco and Seth Rogan, amongst other celebrities like Frank Bidart. For a director, this qualifies as notable. On his Facebook, it says he is about to release a film about Arturo Sandoval who won 10 Grammys and an Emmy and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He is also a Bloomsbury editor and a prominent Latino in the academic community. For these reasons, I do not see a justification for deletion. Anything that needs to be edited can be edited." Astridjj (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — Astridjj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I just found this IMDB page. Maybe you haven't covered all the ground on this person - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7391454/ Astridjj (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — Astridjj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Our notability requirements call for reliable, third-party published sources. Primary sources like Facebook and user-submitted sources like IMDb are not reliable sources. If Ricardo is a prominent editor and academic, then there should be reliable sources making that claim. Woodroar (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not delete~~ - First you claim that there is only one IMDB as evidence of lack of notability, and when I point out a second IMDB, you insist that IMDB is now not a credible third-party source. This is incredibly hypocritical and self-contradictory. The film was reviewed and discussed in numerous outlets, including the Hollywood Reporter. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/f-franco-film-review-748389 I do believe your desire to delete the page has nothing to do with notability but identity politics. For that reason, I will request dispute resolution. Astridjj (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Astridjj: Can you clarify who you are talking to, since you placed your comment underneath your previous comment instead of underneath the comment of whomever you were addressing. As for dispute resolution, this is already a form of dispute resolution. A user has nominated the article for deletion, you disagree with the reason, and other members of the community are welcome to weigh in and make arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. As for your issue with IMDb, it is never a sufficient source. This is codified multiple places including at WP:RS and WP:RS/IMDB. However, when performing due diligence to get an understanding of what work the subject might have done, editors are free to look at whatever sites they want. Notability, though, will be based on what reliable secondary sources say about the subject, not what IMDb says. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" Myrmidon, or Cyphoidbomb, I suppose you would like to be addressed personally in my comment, so please be assured that I am directing this comment to you. The guidelines for Wikipedia notability whether they accept IMDB as a source or not ignores the point I have been making all along which is it is both capricious, malicious, and unnecessary to target this page for deletion under the spurious reasoning that somehow making a film with an A list actor is no longer notable and the only notable biographies are those of A list actors until they fall from grace, and then somehow they are tainted with the odor of obscurity which provokes the hoards of baleful myrmidons to try to delete their existence from Wikipedia, and thereby deny the reading public information about people who are legitimately in a public encyclopedia. Ignoring other information besides IMDB, of which there is plenty, also shows the shallowness and speciousness of the argument that the page should be deleted by purposefully ignoring all other evidence of the subject's notability. I have contacted other scholars of electronic media studies to weigh in on Dr. Ricardo's behalf. There are plenty of people who widely cite Ricardo in electronic media scholarship. Your metric for notability is clearly flawed and ignores a large portion of the evidence out there, now obsessing about IMDB while many other sources exist. Astridjj (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You've crossed a line with your ad hominem Myrmidion nonsense, and the Wikipedia community doesn't tolerate personal attacks. I don't have an "obsession" with IMDb, I was clearing up yet another misunderstanding you had about my earlier statement. But since the more I respond, the more confused you get, I'll keep this as short as possible. The relevant notability guidelines as argued here can be found at WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST. These are not my metrics, these are the Wikipedia community's metrics. If you don't bother reading any of that, that's not my problem. You should also read WP:NOTINHERITED which explains a common community perspective that notability is not inherited, so even if the subject made a work that was notable, the subject himself might still not be notable. At Wikipedia, nobody is considered notable just because they worked with notable people. Since you've admitted to what we would call off-site canvassing, the person who closes this AFD discussion will have to take that into consideration, since urging people to defend your perspective would be unethical. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No indication of notability (per my comments at WP:BLPN). Despite the empty assertions of notability that have been made here, there is no evidence of said notability anywhere on the net, as far as I can tell. And yes, I did look. Perhaps I didn't look deep enough, but I did go several page deep into google, google news, and google books. Nada. Zip. If this person was notable, then someone should have noted him by now. There are no newspaper articles. No magazine articles. No books have been written about him. No book reviews of his works. There are just absolutely no reliable, secondary sources to be found, and if there are, buried deep somewhere, it's not my job to dig for them. The onus is on the person who wants this article to remain. The only reliable sources in the article are reviews of a movie that has not been widely seen, and doesn't have enough sources to confer its own notability, let alone the subject's, but those sources are not about this person. They tell us nothing about this person other than he was the producer. The article simply does not pass general notability guidelines. EZPZ. Simple as that.

Not to mention the article was almost completely incoherent as it was written. You don't often see an article that was that badly written, but there was absolutely no flow, no lead-in, no background info, nothing to give the average reader who never heard of this stuff to be able to have a clue what it is supposed to be saying. It read like pure stream of consciousness. Just a random string of incoherent sentences that would only make sense in the mind of the author. Not to mention most of the article was apparently trying to sell or promote his teachings. An article about a person should be about that person, and not be trying to push their ideas, theories, or products.

IMDB is obviously not a reliable source. Hell, they get a lot of their info from Wikipedia, and the last thing we need is to start citing sources that got their info from us. Anyone could have an article if we operated like that. We have to have some standards. Almost all of the sources are selling his products, like Amazon or Bloomsbury, and we don't use commercial sites as sources. Wikipedia is not here to provide free advertisement. People should have to pay through the nose for that kind of marketing.

If people here think this person is notable, then the solution is simple: prove it. Go find some reliable sources and try to salvage all of the unreadable prose and rewrite it into a proper encyclopedic style. But if you cannot find a good number of reliable, secondary sources (like described above) then that is a good indication that no one has noticed him, or taken note of him, and thus he is not notable. Zaereth (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not Delete~~- I understand some of your objections to the page, and I will make an attempt to rework it. On the topic of notability, Dr. Ricardo is well known in electronic media studies. Since he is well known in academic circles and an oft cited scholar in electronic media, he should be searchable in Wikipedia (for people doing research on electronic media studies). I am going to propose a Wikiproject dedicated to electronic media studies that will expand the number of electronic media scholars (like Dr. Ricardo) who can be found on Wikipedia. While it may seem that Wikipedia is limited to celebrities and current fashion icons, if Wikipedia is ever going to resemble a real encyclopedia, it must contain information about individuals who are notable in their academic disciplines. It seems some of his peer reviewed book publications have been deleted from his page, so that adds to the impression that he has not produced a significant amount of writing in his field. I will seek to correct that by finding those book citations and adding them. The previous post mentioned searching Google, as I just did. Perhaps this will be helpful https://books.google.com/books/about/Cyberculture_and_New_Media.html?id=-_XvCZ0JdAsC or perhaps this is helpful https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/literary-art-in-digital-performance-9780826436009/ I will endeavor to find more sources in the morning. Astridjj (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Astridjj: I've formatted your "do not delete" !votes so they show up properly. You can only !vote once, so I have struck the second and third ones above. By the way, feel free to change the first one to a simple "keep", in bold, as that is what we say instead of "do not delete"ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you. I'll use the term 'keep' in the future. Astridjj (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject does not demonstrate notability. All sources currently listed in the article are either unreliable or fail to demonstrate significant coverage of this person. Potential of finding additional reliable coverage is also limited. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creation of Wikipedia articles is supposed to be independent of the subject. This article very clearly violates that important criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I struggled to find a second review for the F is for Franco film beyond the Hollywood Reporter source. Similarly, I struggled to find mentions of his electronic media theories beyond his own books and namechecks. The closing admin might want to take note of Astridjj's statement above that I have contacted other scholars of electronic media studies to weigh in on Dr. Ricardo's behalf and the obvious COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you so much. I did try to add sources that I found, but I had no luck. The formatting has changed since I was a philosophy editor 6 years ago. I realize it is late in this process now. Astridjj (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astridjj I realize you are a newer editor and we welcome your efforts, however it is crucial that you understand an important Wikipedia policy on recruiting editors (on or off-site) to take sides in a debate: High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki....While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. You may want to keep that in mind in the future. Netherzone (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE. The fact that the article has been created and curated by a couple of kamikaze accounts does not help either. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2020 (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.