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)

Note that per their contributions [2] Justjulesjustjules has made few edits outside of this AfD. Indeed, their first ever edit was to this AfD.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 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)

Note that per their contributions [3] Benprecious has made few edits outside of this AfD.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The subject fails WP:ANYBIO due to a lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. WP:PRIMARY is also a concern, as some sources feature small snippets of quotes by Rouas (or his company), and thus are not independent. Most of the sources cited (which in themselves for the most part do not concern Rouas) mention Rouse in passing; rather, they cover the subject's company and the Jackson family. This is a major issue as (per WP:NOTINHERITED) Rouas does not inherit notability from the famous Jackson family, nor his company.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• CommentI'd like you to bring to note the false accusations...and the reason why we are having this discussion based upon lies that I have been paid to create this article which no such proof can be found. You keep talking about everything but what this article is being reviwed for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 01:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• CommentI'd also like to include this is a stub article and should be treated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 01:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@RevengeOfTheRobots: Pardon? I left a note to you about removing maintenance templates and filed an SPI concerning some editors at this AfD, but conflicts of interest and potential paid editing are never grounds for an AfD. Rather (as I hope my comment above demonstrates), I am voting to delete the page based on notability concerns, namely WP:NOTINHERITED.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6:You act as if digital news perodicals such as Yahoo News, Reauters, and The Hollywood Reporter publish articles about some anywho. As if it was just by pure coincidence that Mr.Rouas happend to have articles written about him by 3 of the biggest online magazines in the world, lol... bro..please stop this and lets move on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

Again, Wikipedia policy is the issue. To begin, the Yahoo News article [4] was not written by Yahoo news (it is attributed to MarketWire, and thus is immediately dis-countable as a press release), is focused around the perfume company rather than Rouas himself (I.E a trivial mention), and is built around quotes from Rouas and his company (thus it is WP:PRIMARY and not independent of the subject, nor in-depth). The Hollywood Reporter article ([5]) likewise is centered around the Jackson family and not Rouas (trivial mention), and as before is built around quotes (again, not independent of the subject). The Reuters article ([6]), as before, focuses on Joe Jackson and perfume, not Rouas, and again only pays passing mention to Rouas by way of two quotes. This is a running theme with the article's sources, which are all either trivial, constructed around snippets of quotes, and lacking in depth.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: I didn't know having articles written about you and the company you started was trivial. Also, Yahoo picked up that article as it's an aggregator of highly reputable newsworthy content. It's not a press releas it's an article Yahoo chose to aggregate through their highly developed alogorithm that only picks up highly newsrated sources. I thought you knew that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

None of the articles cited are about directly covering Rouas, per my earlier comments. Indeed, all sources, even those from reputable outlets, need to be judged on their veracity. Even if you disagree with my views on Yahoo reposing the Marketwire (which is by their own description a generator of press releases), my other points regarding that article's content (as well as the other two articles) still stand. Policy (WP:RS, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NOTE, WP:GNG, WP:PRIMARY) is clear when it comes to establishing independent, in-depth coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• KeepFrank Rouas is a reputable figure in the fragrance world and the references used are from high end sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWay (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that per their contributions [7] DavidWay has made few contributions outside of this AfD.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The subject of this article has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I note that the subject's real name appears to be Julian Rouas. The only source that is actually about Rouas is Nice-Matin, which appears to have done no fact-checking at all and retells what Rouas has to say about himself. (À Nice, où il est venu passer les fêtes avec ses parents, Franck la raconte… ) Vexations (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations:His real name is not Julian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

• SamHolt6 (talk) Accused me of sock puppetry. I want everyone who reads this to know that those claims have been refuted by Wikipedia Admin and that his witch hunt needs to be stopped immediately. His sockpuppetry accusations being denied shows the user lacks judgment in keen areas regarding this article and he is not mentally ambigous enough to make judgements based on this article. He is conducting a witch hunt. I repeat, it's a witch hunt and he needs to be stopped.SPI — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

@RevengeOfTheRobots: For the record, the SPI I filed (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RevengeOfTheRobots) remains open, and the reviewing admin (pinging @Bbb23: the involved admin, if they want to comment) concurred with my assessment that meat-puppetry was a possibility. Note that a key principle of Wikipedia is that editors should assume good faith when dealing with one another; it could be inferred that I violated this when I filed an SPI, but I feel that I am justified in my suspicions when considering the four new editors that have found their way to this AfD and its subject article. But I digress; this AfD is concerned with content, and my actions against you have little bearing on Wikipedia's policy for notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Let it also be known that in the sockpuppet investigation you conjured against me that it states impossible for one and unlikely for the other. Please, when you refer to that give our fellow Wikipedian community members full transparency in your responses. Also, I see you are continuing to leave suspicious notes in an attempt to get my article deleted. Even conspiring with the notation that I've been paid. In your good faith philosophy, you've done nothing like that and instead have attempted to disband and disdain the Wikipedia community with you auspicious behavior and witch hunt methodology. The argument is based on are my sources notable and if I was paid, which numerous members of the Wikipedia community have added to to the conversation that references are notable, the person of subject is worthy, and that this does not look like a paid article nor have I conspired to do any sock puppetry. You are making the joy of being a member of the Wikipdia community dampened and almost cringe-worthy at least.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs)

@RevengeOfTheRobots: Yes yes we both linked the open SPI for other editors to access at their leisure, but this page is an AfD and is to be used to discussing the article being considered for deletion. If you wish to have my actions reviewed by other editors, then please pursue appropriate channels on Wikipedia for doing that. For now, I am sticking to my delete vote on the basis of a notability guideline failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - First of all, remember all are welcome here at Wikipedia and more importantly any and all honest opinions are wanted here, be they be from an established editor or the Newbie contributing for the first time. Do not feel put upon if another editor has a different opinion and expresses their view point as passionately as you have done. Remember, it is only a difference of opinion. Each and every editor has their own standard with regards to which articles should be included here in an encyclopedia and which pieces have not yet reached the level of compendium to be included. My opinion, for inclusion, is that the piece has enough, more than 2 or 3, Independent – Secondary – Reliable – In-depth coverage of that particular subject before inclusion here at Wikipedia. Another editor may say 1-2 mentions in the local newspaper establishes Notability, while a third editor may have an established criteria of 5 or more references that must be meet from well-established institutions like the New York Times or the Daily Express. The process of AFD is to establish consensus among all the editors if the piece should or should not be included. Either way this AFD goes, hope to see you around editing more pieces. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Just to add/clarify, regardless of the opinions of each individual editor, there are POLICIES and GUIDELINES which provide in-depth details on the barest minimum standard for inclusion (it differs depending on the topic). Editors may have higher or more stringent standards but it is extremely unlikely (practically, it never happens) that a topic will be considered for inclusion if is does not meet the minimum standards. Discussions/arguments at AfD should refer to the policies/guidelines in their reasoning as justification for their !vote as it greatly simplifies the process for closing admins. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Not even close to meeting the requirements of WP:BASIC. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a substitute for a CV or personal website. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant coasting on Jackson notability, without in-depth specific coverage. Clearly promotional. The aggravating meat/sock-puppetry in this discussion in no way improves matters. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment How can use say sockpuppetry when the results are unlikely and unrelated...