Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Rouas

Frank Rouas

Frank Rouas (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)

Promotion of a company. Paid Users SaiLeeKom (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm trying to understand why my articles are being nominated for speedy deletion? I'm a huge fan of Michael Jackson. Part of what I do is find everything important revolving around him making sure his millions of fans stay knowledgeable of Mr. Jackson as he is one of the most popular public figures of all time. I have no connection to the Jackson Family, Frank Rouas, or anyone listed in any of my articles. This is important news about Michael Jackon's cologne which has been hugely successful product and company. Frank Rouas played a huge role not only in Michael's life but the Jackson as well as the fragrance world with his contribution to the king of pops only fragrances ever created. This is huge and important. Once again I am not associated with anyone in this article. Just a fan of the subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 09:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add that SaiLeKom is attempting to say that I have been paid to create such articles which are entirely untrue. Michael Jackson, The Jacksons, and their business partners are notable people. This is public information and is backed up by credible sources. I have do not know anyone and this is an untrue accusation and flat out lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Promoting a company using the name of the great Michael Jackson and his family Jackson family. Resources are also weak and not justified the subject.SaiLeeKom (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete blatantly promotional article, could have been speedy deleted as spam, but it was a good idea to bring this and JRP Collection Paris on grounds of notability. No indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and no significant coverage online in WP:RS, just passing mentions in connection with his company's notable customers, and WP: Notability is not inherited. See also speedy deletions of Franck Julian Rouas and Franck Rouas, and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Charliee123/Archive. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep.Are you kidding me? Articles are from legitimate sources. Yahoo, Reuters for example so saying resources are weak when Reuters and Yahoo are worthy sources doesn't make sense. Once again this qualifies as a stub page. All the sources are notable. But the true fact is the reason why it's been even considered are based upon accusation that this has been paid for, which in fact has not. No payments nothing. Stick with the reasons. Also, who is Charleen123. Once again you're pointing out pure assumptions. Nothing based on facts. Only facts are in the references I created for this Stub article as a fan of Jackson and his perfumer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 10:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The nominator can be forgiven for thinking that there's a WP:Conflict of interest here, especially as you've uploaded his accompanying posed portrait File:Frank_Rouas.png as your own work, and declared yourself to be the copyright holder.

Promotional tone can be fixed, and that on its own isn't a reason to delete. The real problem here is notability. Yes, there are several reliable sources cited, but they only mention him in connection with his company, and there's nothing to indicate that he's notable enough outside of it for a separate article. All owners of notable companies aren't necessarily notable themselves, and it's not that unusual for articles on CEOs of notable companies to be deleted. What's needed is significant coverage of Rouas himself from the reliable sources. You can read about what this means in WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability is not the issue. There are 11 or 12 references made by reputable magazines about the guy. That's not the real problem. The only issue is from SaiLeeKom's whose only reason he stated for tampering with my article was completely based on his false accusations that I'm connected in somehow with the Jackson's or their employees. That's the only reason why I'm even going through this. It's all because I didn't upload a photo right? Come on... I don't have that much experience uploading photos. That was an honest mistake which I can correct by reuploading the photo under copy write. The dude is acting like I'm sitting here next to Janet, Tito, Latoya, Jermaine and Frank and I'm writing it with them..lol. Maybe I'm typing this with the glitter glove as well if he believes that. Maybe I'll moonwalk my ass back home from Never Never Land in the process. This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 12:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if 12 or 1000 references are added, from the finest sources in the world, if they're not specifically about the subject of the article.

Also, please note that Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment, and we don't WP:OWN the articles we create.

You said above that uploading it as your own work was an honest mistake, and that's fine. But if the photo's not your own work, may I ask where you found it? The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It was found doing a simple google search. It's public domain. Once again. This page isn't under scrutiny due to it's sources. The only reason is because someone is saying I'm being paid. Let's address that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find it in a Google search. Can you please find it again? An image on a publicly accessible website isn't necessarily public domain, and you've uploaded it again as File:Perfumer of Jackon's.png with a very vague claim for it being public domain: Wikipedia is legally obliged to take down copyrighted content as soon as an editor is aware of the problem. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Bro, go to Google Image search and type his name. It's right there. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1654&bih=827&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=nzQQW6y8BeaM0gKL5JjQBQ&q=franck+rouas&oq=franck+rouas&gs_l=img.3..0i30k1.93029.93029.0.93493.1.1.0.0.0.0.87.87.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.1.86....0.oc68_k3jn0g — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 17:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No, all I can see is this image from his Twitter. Similar, but not identical. It's a cropped version of the larger image you've uploaded twice. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting... on my google search it leads to a Facebook page from Joe Jackson [1]. RevengeOfTheRobots (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well then it will have to be taken down: Facebook content is not public domain, in fact it's clearly labelled copyright on that FB page. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Facebook "public post", which this is, is public domain. You're wrong about that one! Read it here buddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've also removed the unsourced birth date per WP:BLPPRIVACY. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete – Mr. Rouse has not generated enough secondary in-depth coverage of the person Franck Rouas as an individual. All the coverage I found was a brief spat between Joe Jackson and the company Mr. Rouas runs with concern to the introduction of a line of perfume with Michael Jackson name on it and supposedly not authorized by the Jackson family. Only if and when more detailed coverage can be obtained concerning Mr. Rouas, the individual, the piece should be deleted.ShoesssS ^Talk 13:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep – I believe the references used are from reputable sources making the subject of the article and his work prolific enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justjulesjustjules (talk • contribs) 23:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep – The references used in this article are from trusted sources and I believe that this article is accurate and very reliable while not looking like a paid piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benprecious (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – I find it unusual that both User:Justjulesjustjules and User:Benprecious accounts were just created today and their only contributions are to this particular AFD. WP:Sock puppetry in play? ShoesssS ^Talk 00:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment" - oh yeah, well that just goes to show you the strength of the subject in the article - Frank Rouas - and the Jackson brand. I literally have gone 30 years of my life without ever feeling the need to make a wikipedia profile until now- that's how completely ridiculous this entire argument is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justjulesjustjules (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Frank Rouas and the Jackson's family brand have millions of fans across the globe. Michael, is the biggest superstar both living and in death and you're wondering why people are finding this article on the guy who created his celebrated scents? RevengeOfTheRobots (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)