Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Ducos-Bello

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. SarahStierch (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

José Ducos-Bello[edit]

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

Customs officer who blew the whistle on alleged corruption. That incident itself does not seem like enough, see WP:BLP1E. The rest of the article seems to be promotional/laudatory puffery about what a wonderful person and officer he is. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not often that an Inspector General writes a letter to the President informing on a corruption triggered by a whistleblower who uncovers a scheme that may ballon, according to their estimates, to a $300 million loss to the US Government, followed by persecution and transfers affecting the whistleblower. While some of the edits to my original basic article may be somewhat florid, the notability and effectiveness of this whistleblower's testimony is apparent to me, and also to the news media in three different jurisdictions (PR, DC and VT) thgat found it significant enough to cover the story he uncovered. Pr4ever (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is so poorly written (and the references such a mess) that it's hard to figure out what's going on. An Inspector General wrote a letter about the subject to the president? And why is this unique? The article makes reference to various primary sources--and how do we get a letter by the subject in this article? Where was this cited? (Or does the article author have a copy? again, primary sourcing.) Furthermore, I wonder whether, given that it's not clear where the letter came from, the entire article shouldn't be deleted as a copyvio.
As for the rest, this is indeed vanispam, the puffing up of one person (case in point, he met the president, the article says). Note such claims as "Mr. Ducos speculates it may eventually reach $985 million or more", without a reference given--no proof is provided that Mr. Ducos is in a position to make such predictions. It's possible, in principle, that this is more than a case of BLP1E, but I see no evidence of it. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A case like this need to be careful. Whistle blowers receive a percentage of the money, so even 1% would be a $3-$5 million reward (and probably more than 1%), so there is material reason for parties to ensure this case has publicity, and there may be POV in the article that is difficult to untangle or balance. The primary source document inclusion suggests a public case/appeal (see WP:ADVOCACY). I'm not assuming bad faith, but ask the article be held to higher standards of notability while the case is unresolved. I don't believe we should cover the topic until there is evidence of post-resolution notability, at the moment it's an ongoing News event (see WP:NOTNEWS) the notability of which has yet to be determined. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2013 (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.