Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco D'Agostino (3rd nomination)

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. I'm closing this as delete. The article is essentially the story of ambassador Reich's attempts to sue the subject and other people in the United States for allegedly illegal business practices in Venezuela. There are other sources that have shown up in the article from time to time, but the all center around this. When stripped out, as they are currently, there is little to support notability. Thus, we a have ONEEVENT/BLPCRIME case that properly should be deleted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco D'Agostino[edit]

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

This has been closed as "no consensus" not so long ago, but a new source has appeared in the meanwhile which casts doubt on the factual accuracy of the info, and the notability of the subject. Per the official register of Derwick Associates the subject is not a partner or director of this company. The claim was made by a party who brought a lawsuit against Derwick which was dismissed by the judge. Thus we stand here empty-handed. No info, no sources, many false claims and no notability. The subject fails WP:GNG and mentioning the lawsuits and connecting him to the accused company violates WP:BLPCRIME. Kraxler (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how the meatpuppets keep winning this one, when there is unmistakeable proof Derwick has been paying for edits on Wikipedia. The lawsuits are not over. One was dismissed only because of jurisdiction. There are still ongoing RICO & bribery suits that have not been dismissed, of which D'Agostino is named. Since the court depositions are primary sources they cant be included here. But it does show why these persons want to distance themselves from Derwick through their PR aid. Anyways, here is another source illustrating D'Agostino's place at Derwick: (http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/id=1202736761233/One-Lawyers-Take-American-Courts-not-the-Place-for-Spats-Between-Foreigners-Judge-Agrees-in-This-Case?slreturn=20150814232615) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Righteousskills (talk • contribs) User:Righteousskills is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT

This was already the second dismissed case. The article is behind a pay-wall, so I can see only the headline and first sentence. Who are "the meatpuppets" you are referring to? Kraxler (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE-- - It is hard to understand how this biography of a living person is still on Wikipedia considering all the WP policy that it seems to be in violation of. On this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Summary_deletion.2C_creation_prevention.2C_and_courtesy_blanking note the following:

"Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed. If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment."

There seems to be only one editor who wants to see this article remain on Wikipedia, and it seems like he/she may have a COI here. There is also the fact that the article is supported by only 1 source. Every other “fact” on the article cannot be sourced. Doesn’t this fail the notability test? Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Any_biography Neither of these criteria have been met in this article.

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

On the same page there is a discussion about crime victims and perpetrators:

"A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size. Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:

For perpetrators

1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.[10]

2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[11]

o Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

Neither of those above criteria apply here, and D'Agostino has NOT been convicted of a crime.

Please wiki editors—this is the third nomination to delete this article. It was successfully deleted after the first discussion, and then resurrected by Righteousskills who was also the creator of this article. Perhaps he is the real “meat puppet” here with an ulterior motive to defame D'Agostino.

If there is so much “unmistakeable proof Derwick has been paying for edits on Wikipedia” then let’s see those proofs. There is not even proof by a reliable third party source that D’Agostino went to Boston College, has a BS in Economics, or just about any other fact written about him on this wiki. The only reason Righteousskills wants this wiki published is to shine a light on D’Agostino’s alleged criminal activities, despite the undisputed fact that the case against him was dismissed TWICE in courts of law. Really, please take down this non-article, it violates several Wiki policies, and this discussion has become a waste of time and resources.Pangera (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 25 September 2015 (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.