Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco D'Agostino (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 no consensus. No meeting of the minds occurred over whether the subject had notability independent of the accusations. Since a no consensus close defaults to keep, care will have to be taken to avoid the BLP issues raised here. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Francisco D'Agostino
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1. D’Agostino’s page was not notable before when it was first nominated for deletion, and it is still not notable. There are no articles on the internet exclusively about him, which is supposed to be a requirement for notability. 2. Rightousskills’ motives are questionable. It looks like he has a COI. He created a page about ProEnergy Services, which is also not notable, and which was involved in the investigation with Derwick. All the charges were dropped. He also created a page about Pedro Trebbau Lopez and was in an editing war on the Alejandro Betancourt Lopez page. 3. This article should be judged exclusively on its own merits. I don't believe that just because a sock puppet requested the deletion makes it automatically an invalid request. 4. The only thing that is/was notable about D'Agostino was the investigation he was involved in. There is nothing else notable about him, and now that the charges against him were dismissed, it seems he is not really worthy of a Wikipedia article. 5. It appears that Rightousskills has ulterior motives for editing all these related articles about non-wikiworthy people. 6. I am asking editors that come here to debate whether this article should stay in Wikipedia to please consider this article on its merits and compare it to the strict criteria Wikipedia upholds for articles and especially biographies. Please see Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Escapefromalcatraz (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguinHangout 12:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — Cute<b style="color:#00A300">st</b><b style="color:#0A47FF">Penguin</b>Hangout 12:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: influential member of Venezuela's "boliburguesía", in addition to the significant coverage of the lawsuit in many sources WSJ for example the Venezuelan press even writes articles about his houses. Vrac (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Vrac. Significant coverage in at least 3 languages available. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete this is an attack piece, and violates WP:BLP policy. Note that the alleged accusations of corruption/graft were dismissed by a judge, see Judge Dismisses Racketeering Claims Against Venezuelan Businessmen in WSJ. Pan caliente, a Venezuelan (opposition-leaning mews site of unclear authorship/editorial control/fact checking diligence), talks about his house in Aruba (see link by Vrac) to put him in a bad light, but Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Kraxler (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That the article is in serious need of a copy edit is no reason for deletion. Yes, I agree with your WSJ assessment, but no matter the legal intricacies, he is notable due to the temporal scope and repercussions of his actions, per Vrac's argument. He has significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, evidently passing WP:GNG. That the article needs improvement is another issue. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  <sup style="color:Green;font-family:Times;">Talk   07:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the lawsuit being thrown out cancels the notability established by coverage in WP:RS, if the article is not neutral that's a good reason to rewrite it so that it gives proper weight to what happened, but I don't see that as a reason to delete. This is individual doesn't fit the description of "relatively unknown" in WP:BLPCRIME, he is prominent Venezuelan businessman who is married to one of Victor Vargas's daughters, so he gets mentioned in the press for things unrelated to this lawsuit:  ,  .  Without the lawsuit a Wiki article would be a stretch but he is a public figure.Vrac (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like trivial mentions to me. However I may change my vote if somebody rewrites the article to comply with BLP and NPOV. Otherwise, I prefer WP:TNT. Kraxler (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep User:Vrac's right, just because a judge threw it out, doesn't mean it isn't a part of history, enough history at least for WSJ to report on it. SnowdenFan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. I quote from WP:BLPCRIME "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Kraxler (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, he's not notable for the crimes, he's notable for his status as part of the "boliburguesía"! FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's not a single source for this notability, all four sources in the article are (in-depth) about the lawsuit, forbidden under BLPCRIME. All sources which mention his connection to the "boliburguesia" and French nobility are the most trivial mentions attending parties of his in-law extended family, without any info on the person. Kraxler (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope its OK to add to my argument to Delete. It is impossible to find additional information about this man that does not relate to his corruption case. I think anyone trying to rewrite this article to make it 'neutral' would find very little to write about other than his dismissed charges. Just being a 'well-known' businessman, or married to the daughter of a famous person (a trivial mention, as stated above) does not make him 'notable' in the sense that Wikipedia seems to mean it. I would like to re-emphasize the points that Kraxler made: that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, and there are strict rules about biographies here. WP:BLP I have seen much more neutral articles about more well-known people deleted speedily from Wikipedia because of lack of notability and lack of neutrality.WP:BIO. Escapefromalcatraz (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, this is very negatively skewed and the multiple sources mentioned above are all about the case, something which cannot be portrayed in a balanced fashion per BLPCRIME given the acquittal. For me this article should not exist in this form, and I don't believe in any form, as outside of the trial-related sources (which aren't as relevant given the acquittal) there isn't much left. Daniel (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * keep - Satisfies WP:GNG. I fail to see how thee text violates WP:BLP: the lawsuits are described in a neutral form. However I would suggest to strike them out, because D'Agostino is an occasional part of it, i.e, they are not against him directly (at least this is not seen from the article text). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:BLPCRIME "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." The case was dismissed, no conviction, so the news of the case do not add to notability, and there's nothing else but the most trivial mentions. There's absolutely no in-depth source on this person, so that we don't even know his birth date or place. Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Kraxler. Allegations and potentialities don't count. MSJapan (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect over to Derwick Associates since it looks like D'Agostino apparently isn't a notable person apart from his involvement with that company. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.