Hamid Castro (edit | 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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, since subject's career is barely getting started. Coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subjects warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and New York. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is more references that I found and he's been recently being more talked about, he's a well known guy in my state. I believe that he at least qualifies for a stub at most. There are New York Times and New York Posts standalone articles about him, and the region I'm living in (New York City), there have been a lot of local press covering him and filmmakers are what I write about and I believe this article should be kept as I don't see how this violates notability. Issacvandyke (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Issacvandyke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

of course, if you would like to chat about how this article could have been written better, I am open to all discussions :) Issacvandyke (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Just from researching the topic I found over 15-20 Clothing brands writing about the topic and a few standalone articles about the topic which have been added to the article from major news sources. If you ask me, the topics film is released in nationwide theaters (USA) in around a week, I say Keep. Filmwizardtx (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Filmwizardtx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Leaning towards Delete. I could not find a source that meets WP:GNG and warrants this as a stand-alone article. So far, most of the sources I see are about Lake George (film). I don't think there should be a redirect since the film is unreleased and there is questionable notability of both articles.
  @Issacvandyke: Please link the New York Times articles you mention; I could not find one searching for "Hamid Castro" or "Hamid Antonio Castro" on their site. Also, NYPost is generally considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards (WP:NYPOST). - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and per User:Whisperjane's source analysis. I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and while a redirect would be a useful WP:ATD, his film doesn't look like it passes WP:NFILM either. Obvious sockpuppetry, but ineligible for speedy G5. Wikishovel (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it would be worth opening a SPA, if you are interested - they've been editing for a while and as far as I can see, it looks like one would pop up as efforts to create an article were declined at AfC or elsewhere. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI is already open, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His film is releasing in less than a week from now, I say we wait for for a few weeks to see the press that comes to from it, it has been increasing in press recently. is the article written in the best format? maybe there should be some improvement. but, I believe that there is enough for this stay on wikipedia. Ulyssesgranted (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Ulyssesgranted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Want to note that all of the keeps so far are from new accounts, and most are SPAs. No one has yet linked a single source, so I would like to remind new editors that establishing notability on Wikipedia requires you to have reliable sources that back up your claims. - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe, but the part where they say to wait makes sense. Draftify until release (I would have waited until release to initiate this, but that's just me). And, btw, the NYP is considered "marginally reliable source(s) for entertainment coverage"; not usable "for controversial statements related to living persons" but NOT "generally unreliable". (I'm not saying it's great journalism.) Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you are right about the NYP; I was trying to simplify my comment by saying "generally". To clarify, the NYP source in question looks like it falls under WP:NYPOST instead of WP:DECIDER, because it is not entertainment coverage, as far as I can tell. The NYP's site lists it as a "Health" article, and not under any of their 6 entertainment categories. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think a very valid question to ask here is whether or not this individual would be notable outside of their film (assuming that will pass NFILM by the time the AfD closes). Here's a rundown of the sourcing:

1. Plex: Routine database listing at best. Cannot establish notability.
2. AMC Theaters: Also a routine database type listing. Releasing into theaters doesn't make a movie automatically notable, no more than releasing direct to home video makes a movie automatically non-notable. Cannot establish notability.
3. Production company website: Primary source, cannot establish notability.
4. Thrillist: This is better, but part of the issue here is that the bulk of the article is written by Castro himself. There are a couple of paragraphs not written by him, but this does make me question whether or not this would be seen as a primary source akin to interviews. Now, I don't necessarily think that interviews are incapable of establishing notability, but it's a pretty widely held opinion on Wikipedia that interviews are primary sources and cannot establish notability. Given that the paragraphs are an opening to Castro's article about himself, I would say that this would be a very weak source at best and at worst, a primary one.
5. NY Post: As another has said, this is a weird area. Only the entertainment section is considered to be usable, but even then it's only marginally usable. This was published to the health section, not the entertainment section. It's not being used to back up anything controversial, which is helpful, but the fact still remains that this isn't an entertainment article. It's an article written about Castro as it pertains to his fitness business. At best this is another very weak source and honestly, I am extremely uncomfortable with using the NYP as a deciding factor in establishing notability.
6. Podcast: This looks to be a WP:SPS as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I looked to see if the show or its host (Vincent Lanci) were cited as RS by other RS, but there's nothing out there. I have to assume that this is a self-published source that cannot establish notability. Even if it wasn't, it's an interview and as such, would likely be seen as a primary source anyway. We could probably use this to back up non-controversial claims, but we can't use it to establish notability.
7. Tapology and NYU athletics: These cover Castro's collegiate athletic career. I'm not hugely savvy with NATHLETE, but offhand it doesn't look like he passes WP:NCOLLATH. These could be used to back up basic info, but not establish notability.

Now, having gone through this, it looks like there are only two sources that could potentially be used to establish notability: Thrillist and NYP. The first is almost entirely written by Castro, making it more or less a primary source. The second is questionable as it's labeled as a health article rather than entertainment. Even if both were seen as usable, they're both extremely weak sources. To me, this doesn't establish how Castro is independently notable outside of the film, assuming that it passes notability guidelines in the future. This means that if the film does eventually pass NFILM, there's a choice to be made: have an article for the director or have an article for the film. There's not really enough notability to justify two articles, again assuming that the film eventually passes NFILM.

I'm going to see if I can find anything else, but offhand I'm inclined to argue against notability here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That didn't take long. What's in the article is what's out there. I even looked with Newspapers.com to see if there was any older sourcing. This guy just isn't independently notable of his movie, which is of questionable notability itself.

So... assuming that the film passes notability guidelines, the question here is whether or not we should have an article on the film or the director. In cases like this, I'm generally more inclined to retain the creative's page. My justification is essentially this: it gives us a place to cover any of the person's future work as well as other things that never quite tally up to passing GNG/NBIO on their own. This not only gives us slightly more content, but can also pull double duty in that it sometimes can help prevent people from creating articles on borderline or non-notable topics. We have one decent article instead of a handful of questionable ones.

However that's assuming that the movie passes NFILM once it releases. If it doesn't, then this will be a delete or draftify on my end because what we have is extremely weak. I'll go ahead and wait for the end of the week to make an argument for or against, just in case the film pulls a Hail Mary on us. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CU Note Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HHamidcastro - many of the accounts who have commented above are confirmed socks of the article's author. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. It's awfully wordy for an encyclopedia article, but not so terrible that WP:TNT applies. I edited down one paragraph. I'm not convinced that the subject is notable enough to pass WP:GNG, based on the mediocre sourcing. The upcoming film might be a hit, but we are not a collective psychic. My experience over almost 18 years here is that if Sockpuppets swarm a discussion, it's probably a losing proposition. However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, userfication is a valid result. Bearian (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with no objection to draftify. The film has been released and there is no additional coverage. Given that the film is currently non-notable, this makes this article non-notable as well. I have no objection to this getting draftified along with the film article but I'll be honest in that I don't find it likely that notability will be established for either before it gets deleted due to draft age. As mentioned above, we only have two sources that could remotely be usable. One of them is an article that is almost entirely written by the subject (but with a couple of paragraphs before that, introducing him). The other is a NY Post article, but published under their health section instead of the entertainment one, which makes it likely unusable. Both are extremely weak sources at best, hence why I don't personally see either as usable and why I was hoping for the film to pass notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]