Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Costa (filmmaker)


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ricardo Costa (filmmaker)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a filmmaker and articles about eight of his films, representing his own conflict of interest attempts to promote himself and his work in an advertorialized manner. He does not appear to have been the original creator of the BLP itself, although he and his other confirmed sockpuppets have been the primary followup editors of it -- but he created virtually all of the film articles himself, and has sourced all of the articles almost entirely to his own self-published content about himself: even in the BLP, the few genuinely independent sources not self-published by Costa to his own website contain no content about him at all, and are being used solely to source strictly tangential content about the overall themes of Portuguese cinema in general that has no bearing whatsoever on Costa's notability or lack thereof. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody without a conflict of interest can write the articles neutrally and reference them properly, but Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for people to write about themselves or self-cite their notability to their own self-published content in lieu of real reliable source coverage and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the nominator. All of these film articles are the fruit of a poisoned WP:COI tree and should be swiftly and vigorously uprooted. There is no place for dishonest self-published work to gain free advertising on Wikipedia and it should not be rewarded with continued hosting. The filmmaker's article has also been tainted by this corruption and should be uprooted as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The Portuguese article has reliable sources from Público and observador . Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if we overlooked the COI problems in the BLP on the basis of the existence of these sources, what reliable sources salvage the films? Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don"t think the films are notables, therefore I'd like to have separate AfD. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all, as per nom and Newshunter12. Self-promotion should not be tolerated. Onel 5969  TT me 03:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all as WP:NOTPROMO is policy. No prejudice against later recreation if notability can be supported and an article written by editors compliant with policy, guidelines, and terms of use. Bakazaka (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The text suffers from exceptionally fawning prose about a subject whose lack of Wikinotability it attempts to overcome through citation overkill (e.g. almost a dozen references to support the phrase "sober, musical and poetic narratives, interesting cinephiles and suitable for common audiences"). As things stand, better delete and start over. -The Gnome (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2019 (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.