- 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. ✗ plicit 12:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Michael D. Ratner
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Michael D. Ratner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mightily promotional article, tagged to death as such with Citation Needed decorating almost every line. Stood up on incidental mentions and tangential coverage, no WP:SIGCOV. No evident notability, fails WP:GNG; WP:FILMMAKER. Oh, previously deleted twice, once for copyvio, once for promotion. Which is not to say that these, at least the copyvio, apply here. Promotion maybe more... Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- This page now has its proper citations. Why is it up for deletion? Sheps2010 ( talk) 17:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I found this on my watchlist and was perplexed why I had it there before realizing I was involved in a prior G12 deletion. Looking at the history, the current borderline-G11 state of the article is a recent expansion -- older revisions touch on the promotional but don't fall nearly so far. Notability of producers is a bit complicated as most producers aren't covered as broadly as equivalently significant actors or directors, but I think there might be a case for notability here; the problem is every attempt to make this article has been disrupted by massive copyvios and LinkedIn-tier promotionalism. It's a tricky case right on the border. Vaticidal prophet 03:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- With sourcing, something to look at is whether the articles were part of a marketing package (ie, paid to have an article written) or who wrote them. In the case of Forbes, it was written by a contributor. What this means is that the writer isn't part of Forbes's staff and as such, they don't provide any sort of editorial oversight or factchecking. This makes it essentially a self-published source. It's not exactly a random Wordpress blogger situation, but it's not exactly far off either. Now as far as what this means for notability/reliability, it means that the onus is now on showing that the writer is a reliable source, which can be fairly difficult to establish since we'd need to show where she's been cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources. Academic and scholarly sources are usually the best for this, but newspapers and such can work as well. It's just harder to establish this since a lot of times the focus with newspapers and media outlets tends towards the sensational rather than reliability, particularly when it comes to showbusiness and anything related to Hollywood type stars and singers. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Another thing to be careful about are articles that are either reprints of a press release or so heavily copied from one that it's more or less a press release. Press releases are considered primary sources since they were put out by the person or their representative, so they can't show notability. There are one or two exceptions (like the Oscars putting out a press release of winners), but as a rule primary sources can almost never give notability. With business this is kind of difficult since this is kind of a regular thing, which is why WP:NBUSINESS has a rule about routine coverage. I'm not as savvy on that front so I can't really give much input on that.
- As far as copyvio goes, that means copyright violation. This means that wording is either taken verbatim from a copyrighted source or is so closely paraphrased that it poses a copyright issue. Linkedin-wise, this is usually a term on here that people use to refer to articles that come across as a CV or resume. Linkedin pages are meant to promote the individual, so this is used when an article comes across as promotional as well. Promotional content can be one of the more difficult areas to navigate on Wikipedia because what seems fine in one area will come across as promotional on here - especially if you work for marketing and advertising. Promotional language is very commonplace there, so it's harder to notice if something would be non-neutral elsewhere.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(｡◕‿◕｡) 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Now that said, if you are part of a marketing agency or were otherwise asked to come here and edit the article, then it's vital that you look over WP:COI. You can edit with a conflict of interest but you must be transparent about it and make sure to follow guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Beyond press-releases of things his company has sold to media outlets, there isn't much. This [1] half interview article, this provides details about his Biebs movie [2], neither of which is of much use for sources. An interview here: [3], rest is all fluff about his wedding or chats about movies he's made. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment and the entire middle and bottom third of the article are unsourced and read like a CV or a linkedin post. Very promotional in tone. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete possible COI/promotional Andrevan @ 05:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: The very first source I randomly looked (Forbes) states COURTESY OF OBB MEDIA and is more about the promotion of a skincare company with Hailey Rhode Bieber. Press releases are usually very advocacy and a BLP demands better sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 ( talk • contribs) 11:57, 6 August 2022 (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.