Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francois Garcia


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Francois Garcia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced WP:BLP, with résumé overtones, of a film and television producer. The referencing here is primarily to glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people, with the sources that are actually about him in any substantive way being a press release, a GNG-flunking blog and his own staff profile on the website of his own company. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a producer into Wikipedia -- it takes reliable source coverage about him, not just cursory verification of his existence. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Some of the articles attached to this one, specifically Universal Groove are a mess of OR and puffery. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it for AfD. The entire article is a promotional, puffery mess made even worse by the completely unsourced claims that Haim was on drugs the entire time. While it's likely that he was, this is the type of things that people sue over even if the person is deceased, so I'm lobbying for it to be completely deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep All unsourced contents are removed and article has many reliable news sources Agarsamai01 (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * — Agarsamai01 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, it doesn't have a lot of good sourcing. It's got a lot of sources that mention his name in passing in articles that are primarily about somebody else — but it's got zero acceptable sources in which Garcia is substantively the subject of the coverage. Our rule is not anybody gets to have an article the moment his name is mentioned in a handful of newspaper articles about other things (a mayor's wife, for instance, does not get her own separate article just because her name is mentioned four or five times in news articles about her husband) — it's that he has to be the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, and none of the valid sources here have him as their subject. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing here suggests the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  02:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable.  to keep, I would need to find (and have looked but cannot find) profiles/interviews in significant media and/or a film that she produced/crated (not merely assisted on), and it would have to be verifiably significant (not cited to primary sources as some films listed on page now are.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm in agreement with the above arguments. Notability isn't clearly established given that so many of the citations go to questionable sources, and those that appear more reliable just barely touch on the producer without giving the details needed to support a real article. This looks like a pretty clear-cut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2016 (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.