Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rivero

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 Naconkantari 16:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rivero

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Delete non notable individual, fails to meet WP:BIO. Strothra 03:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Move any relevant details to the many conspiracy articles. --Tbeatty 03:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I do not find any reliable sources other than his own website. He is another conspiracist writer who is not as well-known as his fans think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have added a number of reliable third-party sources and info to the article, including info from Popular Mechanics, The Yemen Times, The Register, and Source Watch. See the page history for more information. There are tens of such sources, but it takes tedious page by page searching through the hundreds of thousands of google hits for whatreallyhappened.com. Michael also appeared on CSPAN on 15 May 2003 as reported in this blog [1]. It is totally premature to delete this article. We need more time to locate valid third-party sources and improve the article. Tiamut 02:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Blogs are never a reliable source except as to what that person said. I don't think Source Watch is reliable, either, but I'm not going to delete it. Appearing on CSPAN, if verified, is reasonable evidence of notability, so I'd change my !vote to weak keep if that were confirmed, and he was actually a speaker, rather than being one of a number of interviewees. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Good point. Searching all the CSPAN websites I know of (c-span.org, www.c-spanstore.org, www.booknotes.org, www.booktv.org and www.q-and-a.org) for "Michael Rivero" got zero matches. I googled for “+"Michael Rivero" +5/15/2003” and lots of similar search strings, without finding any more mentions of a CSPAN appearance. If there was one, it's well hidden, unlike everything else about Rivero (including his repulsive anti-semetism — checking the Google hits was not fun). It now seems very unlikely to me that he was interviewed on CSPAN. CWC(talk) 09:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I found links to three different blogs, all of whom despise Rivero, who mention that he was interviewed on CSPAN in May od 2003 (15 May?) by Bill Herbert. See here: [2], [3],[4]. These are not fans, so they have no interest in making him seem more important than he is. I think that should suffice in establishing that the program actually took place. No? Tiamut 22:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I found those. Bill Herbert is the blogger at two of those blogs, not the interviewer. The third blog post is just asking "Is Bill Herbert pulling our leg?". Mr Herbert says that CSPAN broadcast footage of Rivero making claims. He does not say that CSPAN interviewed Rivero. Being shown in a report is a lot smaller claim to notability than being interviewed. CWC(talk) 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
            • • Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed that Bill Herbert was the author of two of three posts mentioned there. Still, the point stands that he was sure enough of having seen Rivero on CSPAN that he repeated it on two different blogs an he is no fan. So why say ithappened if it did not? Still, I am trying to locate a more authoritative source. Maybe writing to CSPAN themselves will help. Tiamut 14:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Violates Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement and doesn't cite reliable sources, unless you consider whatreallyhappened.com, 911myths.com and sicmuse.com as reliable (which they aren't under WP:RS). Be prepared for the whatreallyhappened.com meatpuppet Anschlüss. Morton devonshire 05:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Of course, he'll just think that all of us are part of the cabal, but that's just how he rolls... EVula 06:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This entry meets WP:BIO. Michael Rivero has "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following." A search on his name in quotes in google produces 111,000 entries. A search on whatreallyhappened.com, his site, produces 335,000 entires. Whether you agree with his views or those who share them is irrelevant. He is definitely notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Tiamut 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Did you honestly just argue that his own website has lots of information about him? How many of those google hits are real and do not include his site or reproductions of works on his site? --NuclearZer0 12:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think what he was saying is that the website itself produces 335,000 entries in Google, which was one of the arguments used against the deletion of the website's old article. - EmiOfBrie 17:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no assertion of notability, no major media attention, grossly undersourced and difficult to find reliable sources beyond the echo chamber of conspiracy theory blogs. Most assuredly does not conform to WP:BIO, nor does his website merit a mention under WP:WEB.--Rosicrucian 13:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tom and Rosicrucian. --Aude (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - conspiracy theory fame aside, he is still a notable visual-effects artist! Lost, The Day After Tomorrow, Stargate, Trek TNG, that is quite a distinguished list! - EmiOfBrie 14:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment An impressive resume, but not an indicator of notability. If he had received major media attention based off of his work on these, or an industry award, perhaps. There are far more notable effects artists who do not have articles. In fact, while Rick Baker remains a stub I can't really say that Michael Rivero rates more attention.--Rosicrucian 14:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Rosicrurian - science fiction movies employ large teams of visual effects people, these people make important contributions to the movie to be sure but they arn't necessarily big contributions (I remember hearing that on the Star Wars prequels visual effects guys were responsible for 2 seconds of film a week). The visual effects supervisor may be notable, but an animator is no more notable than a casting supervisor or a gaffer or any of the zillions of other people whose names you see in the credits. GabrielF 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If it's shown that he has won an industry award, would either of you consider a keep vote? *Sparkhead 00:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Possibly, as that would go a long way towards establishing him as meeting WP:BIO as an effects artist, and only as an effects artist, via:

• The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
• Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.
• Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.

Make sense? I don't believe I'm applying an unfair standard here, and if people are trying to claim his effects career alone is enough to keep him, this is how I see it.--Rosicrucian 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article would have to be rewritten to promote his notability in special effects and considerably downplay his conspiracy cruft if that's what his notability is going to be built around in the article. --Strothra 03:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Makes sense and I don't believe you're applying an unfair standard either. Checking some history, I'm suprised "Whatreallyhappened.com" was deleted as advertisement, when other comparable entries exist (not arguing that one today though). On topic, a search of his name and his production company "Home Baked Entertainment" reveals claims of awards: Mr. Rivero's awards credits include gold, silver, and bronze medals from the New York International Film Festivals, two Clios in graphics, the Cable Car award at the San Francisco Film Festival, an emmy nomination, and gold & silver Hugos.,[5] and the Hawaii Student Film Festival site notes him as "award winning"[6], but I've been unable to verify a single one from another source. Clio site, IMDB, even the Hugo Award site which lists every (major?) award for the last 60 years doesn't have his name on it, that I could find anyway. Interesting. *Sparkhead 11:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting that you're having trouble verifying his awards - maybe he's overstating his role on his website and it was the film or the team he was part of that won the award. More generally I'd say that an award itself doesn't necessarily prove notability. In academia a Nobel Prize guarantees notability but does a Guggenheim Fellowship? How about a best thesis award from a university? GabrielF 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Anyway, here's his resume [7] and here are some samples of his work [8] I'm not an expert in this field but it doesn't look like he's more notable than the average visual effects guy. GabrielF 16:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I see no evidence of notability. Browsing through the first 20 pages of google results I don't see any mainstream media coverage or anything else that would convince me that this guy has any notability outside the world of conspiracy theorists. GabrielF 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:BIO. Badly written pages should be rewritten; not deleted. This guy has been notable among conspiracy whackos for years -- the following cites are listed on the talk page:

1. New Orleans Times Picayune February 22, 1998 p. A21
2. The Denver Post, September 30, 2001 p. A7
3. Newsday (New York), July 17, 2006 p. A33

happy researching.--csloat 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make him notable even by WP:BIO's standards. --Strothra 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put on the talk page the paragraphs where they mention him. It's too thin to change my mind. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keepThe three sources cited above might be sufficient to establish notability, depending on whether they are more than passing references. Whatever they say about him could and should be cited in the article. His coauthorship of a book on graphics programming and multiple movie credits in his IMDB entry are also valid towards notability. If those other factors establish notability, then it is legit to mention other things that might be mentioned in any biography, like his politics or his hobbies or whatever conspiracy theories he might have.Edison 01:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.--MONGO 11:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete This one looks like he could be worthy of inclusion, but finding reliable sources is complicated by the multitude of conspiracy references out there. If he were to meet WP:BIO standards, it would more likely be for his industry work which, as is currently written in the article, is close but not quite enough. GassyGuy 13:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yeah, that's a lot of the trouble as I see it. Being an online conspiracy theorist drives his Google signal-to-noise ratio waaaaay up, especially given how controversial his views on "Zionists" are. He's heavily blogged about and linked, but none of those count as reliable sources.--Rosicrucian 16:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Brimba 15:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. If notability is to be based upon his special effects work, then I would expect that the bulk of the article would be about that aspect of his life, with only a passing mention of his conspiracy work. In this case, it would seem that his day job would be used as an excuse to push non-notable conspiracy theories and POV, violating the spirit and intent of WP:BIO. - Crockspot 17:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as mentioned above, source that can be found would be against reliable sources and not appropriate for Wikipedia, further his online presence taints the reliability of google hits. --NuclearZer0 19:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Google hits aren't really ever a "reliable" source for proving notability. --Strothra 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Coverage is trivial, would be nearly impossible to write a WP:V compliant article. JoshuaZ 20:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not establish any notability for visual effects (BTW, he was only one of a dozen or so visual effects producers for Lost), and not enough notability for conspiracy-mongering. (Oh, look! He blames the Jewszionists! How original is that?!) CWC(talk) 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• To be fair, he includes Christians in his definition of "Zionists" as well...basically, his definition would be anyone who (he feels) is deliberately trying to bring about the end times and therefore be raptured (with "Zion" being another name for paradise). Given some of the USA and Israel's actions recently (especially Israel's attack against Lebanon for the actions of a private organization who even Lebanon officially does not approve of), I'm not surprised Rivero believes that way. -EmiOfBrie 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to meet the bar of inclusion in several different fields. Any non-notable conspiracy opinions of the subject of the article can be removed without needing to nuke the whole thing. Gamaliel 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Subject claims bin Laden video was doctored – Wow! Where have we heard that before? References provided give a false impression of notable standing. And blog hits from Google search do not establish that he is worthy of an article. As I have mentioned earlier in another one of these cases, we have executed criminals in the U.S. that had plenty of news time, and we do not have articles about them. So, several newspaper stories do not establish a page here. JungleCat talk/contrib 18:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Special effects film credits are not adequate for notability, and the rest of the article is taken from his own web site(s). Coverage of him and his web sites in the mainstream media would be necessary, but not sufficient, for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Still Delete as nominated, in spite of additions. Withdraw vote if the CSPAN interview can be confirmed and he is a major participant in that interview, as opposed to being one of a number of censored conspiracy theorists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:BIO is a guideline and not Wikipedia policy. It notes that the entire concept of notability is a contentious one, and specifically says that any person who meets one of the criteria listed can be considered notable. Further, it notes in bold that even if they fail to fit any one of categories listed, that the list is not an exclusionary one. The guideline is there to help improve the NPOV and quality of articles written, and NOT to be used to raise the bar selectively against those with whose views we disagree so as to delete entries. Rivero's website www.whatreallyhappened.com has already been up for deletion twice, and was deleted on the second attempt after a very contentious debate. No doubt articles will be written on him again since he does have a cult-like following in some quarters, and constitutes part of an online phenomenon that is notable to anyone with any familiarity with alternative news sites. It would be a shame if this entry were to be deleted simply because some people find what he writes about to be beyond the pale. An online encyclopedia should make use of its unique tools and assets to challenge and expand the notion of notability, rather than work to shrink our sphere our knowledge by upholding dogmatic orthodoxies. Tiamut 14:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I fail to see how WP:BIO is being used to raise the bar. He's perhaps a notable person in a very small group. That doesn't make him notable on the larger world stage. EVula 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per JoshuaZ. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:BIO IMO. --Deenoe 02:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per recent article improvements. If you disagree, give it some time to improve further. *Sparkhead 02:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crockspot and JoshuaZ. Sandy (Talk) 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO since the notability is established for the website and not for him, Tewfik^Talk 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Remove everything cited with links to his website, and decide from whats left. --Uncle Bungle 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is about Michael Rivero and why is he notable, and it is includes the website he runs which has received mainstream media attention. While the website may not be a reliable source for other articles, it is a certainly relevant source for the article on Rivero and his website. Not to include information from the website when it is part of what is under discussion in the article is just weird. Tiamut 12:12, 26 October 2006 (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.