Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Branco

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. After weighing the arguments, I find no true basis in policy for the arguments requesting the retention of the article in question. Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Branco

Juan Branco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Autobiographic and in violation of WP:Promotion. A lot of the information provided is also not verifiable (list of influences -> source is an article written by the author himself) (WP: NRVE). Hybris1984 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.Hybris1984 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Ok, there are a lot to correct, but why asking for deletion? I find this an abusive procedure.

Regards, --Daehan (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm quite agreeing with Daehan. Even it may be an autobiography, the subject seems to be notable enough. It is also curious that the deletion nominator is a SPA. Pro patria semper (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Same here. On the form: A lot of identified users passed on this page, and this is a one shot contribution by an anonymous one. On the merits: not argued what is auto-promotional. Work is being done to verify sources, I don't see that much unverifiable, and I've spent time checking the article (the quoted example being maybe the only one to be deletable under the rule of no original work, and even that...). Whether the person participated to its elaboration or not is not per se a criteria. So seems an abusive request. On the page itself: enough sources with broad coverage, French centered but with SP and EN sources (including NYTimes) that trigger that the article meets the criteria. --Rinko87 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to me it is certainly an autobiography, because the creator of the page, Brc, already signed under the name "Juan Branco" there (don't think it is an identity theft...). Which is more, his former pseudonym was "brancojuan" (see this changing username request). But it doesn't seem to have to do with the subject's notoriety. Pro patria semper (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sockpuppet and the subject himself. Proof here. Hybris1984 (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a sockpuppet is someone that uses an avatar to hide himself. Not the case of Daehan and Pps, of course, nor of Rinko87 as I have explicitly clarified as soon as I could (a few days after I created it) in the discussion pages that I was participating through this account and apologized for the confusions that arised from the circumstances and the lack of acknowledgement of my identity in the FR version (apologizes that I renew here, specially to User:Daehan and User:Pro patria semper with whom I interacted without stating my identity during that time). The same clarification regarding multiple accounts would be welcome from you. Yours. --MarceloBielsa (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adressing the arguments above and providing some further context.

First, some more examples of how the article is promotional and biased:

- In the introduction it says: "and [he] has been one of the leaders of the struggle against the French copyright law HADOPI in 2009" The source for this mentions Mr. Branco, but it does not call him "one of the leaders of the struggle" or anything of the sorts. I don't doubt that Mr. Branco was involved in this "struggle", but given that the article is admittedly autobiographical (as stated above: here), the claim to be "a leader" is clearly self-promotional.

- The article states: "His works belong to the critical theory school and have featured collaborations with Noam Chomsky,[15][16] Julian Assange,[17] Alain Badiou,[18] Jean-Luc Godard[19][20] and Baltasar Garzon[8] on issues regarding copyright law, mass violences, surveillance and individual freedoms in the digital age." An examination of the sources shows: The alleged collaboration with Noam Chomsky is an interview conducted by Mr. Branco's father. The collaboration with Mr. Assange is not sourced (the provided source is a link to the interview between Mr. Chomsky an Mr. Branco's father). The source for the collaboration with Alain Badiou is a link to a page on which two books are presented, one written by Mr. Badiou and one written by Mr. Branco - not sure how this constitutes a "collaboration". The collaboration with Jean Luc Godard is - once again - an interview between the latter and Mr. Branco's father. The link to the final collaboration (with Mr. Garzon) does not work... Given that the article was written by Mr. Branco himself, the promotional bias is very obvious.

- The article says: "He has also written extensively on the digital revolution and its effects on cultural industries, proposing a new financing model for the cinema industry based on a wide democratization of cultural access.[26][27]" This is more of a trifle, but two newspaper articles are not "extensive".

- More examples are obvious to anyone reading the article without bias.

Without taking away anything from Mr. Branco's achievements, which might (!) in fact be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, the way this article is written shows perfectly, why Wiki-autobiographies are a tricky thing. To claim a collaboration with Noam Chomsky (a claim also made by users Rinko87 and Daehan - more on this in a second) raises concerns, when the claim obviously falls short. To quote from the article: "If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later."

Regarding the users Daehan and Rinko87: These are the creators of the articles on Mr. Branco in French and Spanish. Considering that the wording (and phrasing) of the three different versions of the article are pretty much identical (including the somewhat outlandish claims about the collaborations, etc.) I have some doubt on whether they are different persons. Why would brc (again: admittedly Mr. Branco himself) only create the English verison given - according to the article - he is French/Spanish. Also why did all the inconsistencies get copied, without any source checking? This is just an addendum though. I think anyone reading the article objectively and checking the sources will find - even if he agrees that Mr. Branco is notable enough - that the article is ripe with self-promotion.Hybris1984 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear talk, I would like to answer to some points you have brought, under my own name. Of course, nor Pps nor Daeshan are my sockpupets, and you would understand perfectly why I changed accounts after some important events on Fr Wikipedia. As I said, I'll stick to this pseudo to participate on this page.

I nonetheless realize that you are not being of good faith whilst dealing with this article. Regarding Chomsky, there are two quoted interviews, and you fail to acknowledge that one of them is made by myself alone, the other with his father as a co-interviewer. The collaboration with Assange is vastly sourced, actually a google research with both names will give you more than enough - and the more specific academic cooperation is sourced with a link with a common conference. Regarding Alain Badiou, he is the editor of my last book, published in his collection ouvertures (sourced again). I guess that's not enough for you... And regarding Godard, I just published a book with him and made two interviews, but I understand again that in your spirit this might not be enough (sic). Garzon same, you will find an important number of links apart the one sourcing the article itself, by just typing both names together on google.

Regarding cultural policies, I agree the extensively could be withdrawn, but two articles and two books is indeed a production. I would perfectly understand that you'd be willing to to improve the article - intention I fully agree with - but I don't really see that intention here. And again, I've not intended to use any sockpupett, but had to change my pseudo participations for an event unrelated to this question. For the sake of clarity I have engaged myself to limit my interventions to this account. But in the interest of the encyclopedia, good faith should be shown by all parts. You have made no arguments regarding admissibility. Your edgyness is not helping. Yours--MarceloBielsa (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hybris1984. I just would like to bring a precision: it is not dubious that Daehan ≠ Rinko87, because of the impossibility to talk to each other (see the French article's talk page) otherwise. Regards. Pro patria semper (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, thank you PPS! Still makes me wonder why the three different language versions all include every claim made without checking the sources... It still seems dubious that the author would only create the English article, considering he is French/Spanish.Hybris1984 (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Just to be clear: I created this article because it was asked in the French WP forum HERE (just because I found the subject interesting). I just translated the English version, checking the sources there were on this version (you can see a proof of that here), but I admit I didn't go further, knowing that this was an article about someone linked to politics (thus prone to be visited by many users in the future). I just wanted to complete the absence of article for what is a 100% admissible article.

I fully agree about the lacks of the article (and I express it in the French WP) − and I add that I am a bit disappointed to realize that Juan Branco himself has altered the content with different usernames −, but you seem to forget that a deletion procedure is for articles that are not admissible. If you don't agree with some contents, suppress it, argue about it in the talk page, etc., but asking for deletion is not acceptable.

I think that you can ask any frenchspeaker to check the French talk page of the article to see the good will and good faith of Pro patria semper and myself. Now we can (hopefully) evacuate any personal attack, can we focus on what really all of this is about : deletion/conservation?

I add that I find it funny to see that you checked our background while you have created this account only for this deletion purpose... I think you should close this procedure...

Regards, --Daehan (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:Deletion Policy mandates deletion. Also to quote from WP:BIO: "If you create an autobiography, you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that." Promotional intent has been (imo) sufficiently proven above... Add in the bad faith sockpuppetry and I am convinced deletion is the appropriate step. I have not attacked anyone, merely raised concerns. The Rinko87 sockpuppet proves that my concerns are not without grounds...

I would very much like to hear the assessment of someone who isn't involved, as to the notability of the subject and adherence of the article to WP guidelines.

As to this being my first contribution: Indeed. My points still stand. You have failed to adress any argument. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As said, I think Juan Branco reaches criterias, and therefore that the page must be kept. However, in my opinion, from now on, the page will have to be watched closely, as we discovered it is an autobiography. — Regards, Pro patria semper 15:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fail to anything, as my point was only to clarify some funny assumptions of yours (btw, "As to this being my first contribution: Indeed. My points still stand" ; yeah, let's not follow this path ;) ) As I said: is the subject admissible? Would you dare to prove that it is not? If there is autobiographic content, let's identify it, suppress it, and stick to what's encyclopedic material.

We should close this procedure and discuss about all the points we need to study and suppress in the article (as I said I totally agreed to do).

Don't just play with words ("or even deleted if it comes to that") and try and be objective and constructive about this issue.

Regards, --Daehan (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for coming off strong, but this discussion feels a bit like tilting at windmills. I expressed (and explained my) doubts concerning users Rinko87 and Daehan. I since discovered that Rinko87 is in fact a sockpuppet, which did nothing to assuage my concerns. I fail to see how I could be any more objective, since I have nothing to do with the creation of the article. I have shown how the article is in violation of multiple WP:Guidelines and nobody has argued otherwise. I feel the reasons provided are grounds for a deletion and the quote I provided is not me "playing with words" but directly from here.

If you do however insist on this also extending to notability, fine:

Subject is also not noteable as per WP:BIO. The subject has neither received a "well-known and significant award or honor" nor has he made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". He does not qualify under any of the nine criteria as to WP:ACADEMIC nor under those listed in WP:AUTHOR. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Hybris, but here too, you are acting in bad faith or in ignorance. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]". You know very well this criteria, which is the cardinal one, is perfectly filled. I presume of your overall good faith, as it is the rule on WP, but I wonder what are the reasons of your action, and talking about sock-puppets (it was explained regarding my situation), why, seen that you seem to know quite well the functionning of the encyclopedia, you created a single purpose account for this question. I don't want to deviate the discussion to too secondary elements though, and I hope other contributors will participate and enhance the page, in spite of the direction taken by this debate. Yours --MarceloBielsa (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DGG.

To make my nomination more accessible for newcomers:

- Author: Subject is argueing with at least three accounts (article creator Brc and users Rinko87 - proof above - and MarceloBielsa -own admission) for his own notability.

- Sources: are largely written by the subject himself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or mention him merely in passing 1 2 3 4 5 The few reliable sources I could find are an interview for the newspaper he is contributing to 1 this book review 2 and this profile from a French online investigative and opinion journal 3.

- Article is heavy on self-promotion: I refer to my examples given above... The claimed "featured collaboration" with Noam Chomsky says it all in my opinion.

Regards -- Hybris1984 (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete An overblown promotion. Little in-depth coverage of the person in independent sources. Some parts of the article greatly exaggerate his role in activism. Most independent sources cited just briefly mention the name. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as said, although it's an autobiography, I think the subject reaches criterias. — Regards, Pro patria semper 12:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability not established. The different (?) contributors above who have repeatedly accused the nominator of abuse and bad faith should pull in their horns and read WP:NPA. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• keep : notability clearly established. Bishonen, you'll tell me where I did a personal attack while I was accused (by someone who created an account for this sole purpose) to have several accounts, instead of providing any argument regarding notoriety. You completely lost the purpose of this procedure and are going to delete an article based on no argument but the suspition to be autopromotion (while we all agreed to delete the autopromotion parts instead of the whole article). Sorry to see how things are managed here... --Daehan (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article looks like it is suffering from WP:citation overkill meant to disguise a lack of notability. If this person were truly notable, this should be more or less immediately evident in the article. The sources provided, far from "clearly establishing" the subject's notability (if it were "clear", we wouldn't be here), have instead suggested the opposite. I found nothing substantive in my own albeit cursory search on him. KDS4444^Talk 09:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are a few problematic issues for me. First, there is no strong claim to notability. Lede basically says he's an early-in-career attorney and an activist and much of article is just an expanded recitation of these activities. The more concerning aspect is the source list. Much of it is web-cruft, including YouTube videos. Solid references, like the NYT article (reference #42) don't mention his name. Others are actually misleading, like the title of #3 in the article is "Juan Branco: HADOPI's rejection is an immense victory for cinema and liberties", but the actual title is Rejet d'Hadopi: «Une immense victoire pour le cinéma et les libertés» – he is only trvially mentioned in the article. I think KDS4444 has it right – the article strains to mask a lack of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete : notability clearly not established, proven by inexistence of focused secondary sources, as seen in the AfD process in fr.wp. Kumʞum ouatizite ? 22:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources do not bear out the significance claimed in the article. He clearly does not pass WP:PROF, but it looks like he also does not pass WP:GNG, and in any case the article needs WP:TNT to remove all the self-promotion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2016 (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.