Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick DePiro


 * 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 13:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Rick DePiro

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Most of the sources in the article are self-published, including the albums. Vmavanti (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Both the nominator and I have engaged with others on this article's talk page to try to improve the sourcing. Improvements and proper sourcing have been promised for years, but have not appeared; instead, sourcing tags have been removed and the same problems repeated. The sources are a mix of not independent of the subject and simply wrong (they don't contain the information given in the article). Most of the text is unsourced. Some sources are valid but the information they support does nothing to establish notability. The only source that might help make a case for notability is the Art and Living one, but, again despite requests for clarification, information on its independence has not been provided. With this possible exception, the article, nine years after its creation, is supported by no sources that are both reliable and can help establish notability (WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG). EddieHugh (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * DELETE - Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:GNG.
 * I read the lengthy entreaty above and searched the recommended magazine 'Music Trades' for 'Rick DePiro' and 'Ricky Dee'. Found three results total, all of which were trivial mentions (e.g. he performed at his employer's event). I'm at a complete loss as to what the 'colleges' link achieves but if I can be glib for a moment, I can guess why this reference wasn't provided previously (my apologies if the humour isn't appreciated). While there is much dissembling here, there is no notability.
 * Searching for 'Rick DePiro' on google news produced zero results for the subject (but two for a high school athlete who shares the same last name). Searching google generated 89 results but after going through them I did not see any which contributed to positive notability. Most are promotional, copies/excerpts of the wikipedia page, or auto-generated pages.
 * Searching for 'Ricky Dee' on google news generated numerous hits for an actor (as well as other people) but none in the first two pages for the subject. In a regular search, he was not among the first five entertainers listed. For what it's worth, even the comments at an online music store look fake (virtually the same fawning comments from multiple people, including one with his name). Given the length of the subject's career, the paucity of significant coverage is noteworthy (peoplemaven?).
 * So I looked at some of the sourcing within the page. Mensa sourcing is embarrassing and should be removed (along with what it allegedly supports in the text). Neither 'zoominfo' nor 'digesst' qualify as reliable and is this really something that belongs in an encyclopedia entry anyways? Leave it for his promo page.
 * The Art & Living piece is pure fluff, with the author being a public relations person, and the article's purpose being to hawk the lessons the subject sells.
 * Having read the article (and it isn't one that lacks for material), I don't really see anything that would meet notability. Essentially, it's one long dog bites man story. As such, none of the existing references I looked at contribute to a notability position. The subject seems to have a fine career but I don't see the notability to warrant a page here. As an aside, I'm concerned that the page's supporters (here and within the talk page) seem singularly obsessed with this page. ogenstein (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. All the bullying and bluster above is enough to convince one that this individual is not notable but let's actually put aside the puppet show and judge the subject. This is bloated promotion for a non notable individual. Nothing satisfying WP:MUSIC. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Refbombed with lots of duds. A few points worth looking at. I found nothing in Music Trades past a few passing mentions. A lot has been claimed above about Art and Living above, so let's look at that one. Reading the article it is obvious to anyone that this is an advertisement. For those that want to claim otherwise for whatever reason we can actually look at that page as it was here (I'm unable to access the site directly). Above the picture it show the location where this advert is filed on their website. It is Home > A and L > Arts > Artists > Entertainment Artists > Advertising > Rick DePiro – Art Heals Through Music. (emphasis added). There is the blue box that says "Advertising" just above the heading. So they clearly label it as Advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention even the byline "Aal Admin" is a giveaway! ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I brought the "Advertising" matter up on the talk page. Steven2nash replied that he would contact the editor of artandliving to get it changed... which happened within hours. The current version categorises the piece as "Conscious Giving". It still reads like advertising, as Duffbeerforme mentions, regardless of what heading it has been given, so I still class it as not RS. EddieHugh (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

* Delete. Wikipedia notability is all about sources. Rather than take the time to rebut all the rationales given in the “Do Not Delete” arguments, I’ll offer this: 1) getting a subject’s name or company in print or mentioned/referenced in any kind of media—no matter how many times—is not automatically significant coverage. 2) It’s worth every editor’s time to thoroughly read and understand wikipedia’s consensus-driven criteria for reliable sources rather than one’s own. 3) On the article edit history, talk page and here many are SPA editors, some throwing around terms like “our” and “we.” It seems there are possibly WP:COI edits at play here, and possible sock puppets and canvasing. Has anyone put in for an investigation of this?

I’ll add one last thing: Being off-the-charts real world successful is not the same as being wikipedia worthy (and, yes, I am aware wikipedia criteria allows for some dubious entries—much less worthy than this subject, especially re: pop culture. I wish I could change these policies myself, but they are consensus driven) I have no doubt this subject is very accomplished and recognized among his peers. He makes for a fine entry in a “who’s who’s” listing and things of that ilk. So do the most successful realtors in Los Angeles county, or the finest K Street lawyers in Washington DC. But without non-promotional significant independent third party recognition a wikipedia article cannot be properly sourced. No prejudice against recreation of this article with RS’s if they can be found; assuming everything in this article is true, it’s surprising that they haven’t already been brought forward if they indeed exist. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC. Non notable musician Taewangkorea (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article itself is a mess. It is obvious that editors closely associated with the subject have been working hard to establish notability. None of the sources cited establish any notability whatsoever, as far as I can gather. The 'title' of one of the citations is: "Freddie Ravel – DePiro shown and mentioned throughout website as partner and co-artist with Ravel. Artists signed and recorded with JaRic Records include both musical projects and music related projects." Basically grasping for straws. He may be a nice person but he is not noteworthy. Also incredibly obvious is that the people voting 'do not delete' are closely associated with the subject or at the very least, are associated with each other. No one has voted keep, everyone has voted 'do not delete'. This tells me they are associated with each other. The inexplicably long and detailed votes tell me that they are associated with the subject. This is not what WP is for. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  12:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Add that all three users who voted keep are single purpose accounts focused around DePiro. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  12:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had noted the similar “do not delete” usage as well. (One..well..okay, just not familiar with AfD conventions. Two? That’s odd. Perhaps aping the other one? Three..um, wait a minute…) Combined with an identical overly-loquacious writing style attached to SPA accounts, my suspicions are they are the same person. A little poking around edit history’s confirms it. The sole non-Rick DePiro-related edits for user Steven2Nash concern the article on the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, originating with a factual dispute edit on 2 April, 2014. 3 Days later, User:A&RBoss weighs in with their, only non-Rick DePiro related entry to “agree with Steve2Nash.” The sock puppetry does not get more obvious. I considered opening a formal investigation, but just as I was writing this post someone apparently beat me to it, as they have now all been blocked. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence that subject meets WP:BIO or music-related notability criteria. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:05, 1 August 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.