Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Costa (filmmaker) (2nd 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. Tone 17:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Costa (filmmaker)[edit]

[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)

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

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

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

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

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

Recreation, still in fundamentally advertorial rather than encyclopedic form and still based primarily on bad sources rather than reliable ones, of articles about a filmmaker and his films that were deleted several months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). Although they've been rewritten sufficiently that I don't feel comfortable speedying them as G4s, they're still written more like university film studies essays than encyclopedia articles, and are still "referenced" mainly to primary sources, such as unpublished essays stored in PDF format in the subject's own self-published website, rather than reliable sources that would properly establish his notability.

The few genuinely reliable sources here are not about Costa or his films at all, but are present mainly to verify tangential information about other people who have nothing whatsoever to do with Costa's notability -- for example, the fact that one of his films premiered at the same film festival as unrelated films by Sofia Coppola and Jim Jarmusch is referenced to a news article about the Jarmusch film which completely fails to mention Costa at all, and thus has nothing whatsoever to do with establishing Costa as notable. Furthermore, the thing that ultimately got the articles deleted the first time was that they all represented Costa's own conflict of interest attempt to promote himself and his work by writing the articles himself — and the creator of these new versions is very likely Costa again (or perhaps somebody else he hired to put his own preferred versions back into Wikipedia for him), as he has a known SPI-confirmed pattern of creating new sockpuppets to reinsert the exact same problematic content that got him editblocked on prior occasions.

As I said the first time, the key to getting him back into Wikipedia is for a neutral party without a COI to write the articles encyclopedically and source them reliably, but neither of those words describe these articles, and Costa still isn't entitled to use Wikipedia to distribute his own self-published autobiographical content about himself. A dose of WP:SALT may also be necessary this time, if he's going to keep doing this. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is Draft:Ricardo Costa to be considered bundled for deletion? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should also be deleted, but as a page that's in draftspace rather than mainspace it's not for AFD to decide. It would have to either be speedied after this discussion ends on ADVERT grounds, or separately listed for its own MFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not sure about deletion yet, but the BIO is full of sycophantic bloat and should be at least stubbified. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not seeing notability (WP:FILMMAKER) here. If someone showed me I'm wrong, then stubification to erase the horrible jargon-ridden OR in place now. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hell no. Pretentious twaddle like this has no place in a credible encyclopedia, or a credible anything. Plus obvious sock and g5. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This issue concerning Bearcat’s personal attacks has no consequences? If so, how is that possible? ”Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party).” Lusouser (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a "conflict of interest" or "non-neutrality" issue here; I've got nothing against you beyond your attempts to use unreliable primary sourcing to support advertorialized content about yourself and your opinions about your own work, and my only "involvement" here is making sure, in my role as a Wikipedia administrator, that Wikipedia's rules are followed and respected and maintained. You do have a conflict of interest, however, as you are not allowed to write about yourself in Wikipedia, or to self-publish your own sources about yourself in lieu of any independent sourcing. If the articles were written objectively and referenced reliably and formatted properly, I would have no issue with them whatsoever: the issue is not that I have anything against you personally, it's that the articles are not complying with our rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2019 (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.