Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Sartori

Juan Sartori

Juan Sartori (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)

Article about an Uruguayan businessman who does not seem to meet WP:GNG. External links are all homepages for companies that he is claimed to have founded, but they don't do anything to provide notability. His name doesn't immediately turn up anything special on Google/GNews/GBooks/GScholar. BenTels (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 00:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow ^Talk 00:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Juan Sartori article is quite relevant, specially for Uruguayans. He is an inspirational figure for people in that country, not only for his success as an entrepreneur, but also for his social commitment. Moreover, google searches display a lot of information about himself (just to mention a couple of sites: The National Business Review; El Pais; Financial Times;Espectador de Negocios). So, although his importance in Uruguay is far greater than in any other country, he is still an internationally relevant businessman as shown by the publications mentioned.(content editor)Bla - uk (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• Comment: Apologies to Bla - uk; I didn't notice your comment before. It doesn't matter whether Juan Sartori is internationally famous or just reasonably well-known in Uruguay; as long as he is notable, he is notable. The National Business Review source you cited mentions a statement Sartori made, but Sartori is not the subject of it. Same for the FT and (as far as I can follow the Spanish) the other sources. So that doesn't help with WP:GNG. But if he is well-known in Uruguay, perhaps there are sources that are directly about him? -- BenTels (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep In the following lines, there are some reasons why I consider the article in question meets the notability criteria: "Significant coverage" - There are a number of sources that address the subject directly in detail. Some of those websites are provided below. The main topic of these sources are issues related to both Juan and his companies. Profile related websites: Interview for Uruguayan Media; Article in Uruguayan Media ; Chronicle in Uruguayan Media ; Markets Data - Reuters ; Markets Data - FT ; Opinion leader for the Uruguayan media . Relevant transactions reaching international media: Article in Bloomberg ; Article in Latinamerican media ; Blog from a wikipedia contributor ; Article in Uruguayan Media . Social Work in Uruguay: Artist Website . "Reliable" - the sources provided above meet the reliable test since the majority of them consist of national and international newspapers with an editorial quality check. "Sources" - as provided by the Wikipedia guidelines all of the sources mentioned above are secondary sources. There are both Spanish and English sources, from different countries including the USA, New Zealand, UK and Uruguay. "Independent of the subject" - as provided by the Wikipedia guidelines all of the links provided in this comment meet the independency requirement, since all except for the last link were produced by writers not affiliated with the subject or its creator. The reasons previously given seem to be enough to evidence the notability of this person. So, in my view and in the view of many Uruguayans he deserves a stand-alone articleBla - uk (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm copying out the refences you cited here (inline citations don't work well in AfD articles):

      http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/217620/si-les-va-bien-a-los-accionistas-invertiran-mas/

      http://www.elpais.com.uy/110123/pecono-542623/economia/-Llegaremos-a-las-100-mil-hectareas-con-inversion-de-US-400-millones-/

      http://noticiasfdiuruguay.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/empresa-de-alimentos-emitira-hasta-us.html

      http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/officerProfile?symbol=UAGR.N&officerId=1612612

      http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Directors-and-dealings?s=UAGR:NYQ

      http://www.infoagro.com.uy/agricultura/253-un-buen-lugar.html

      http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/nz-farming-gets-offer-from-uruguay-s-union-agriculture-group-outbids-olam

      http://www.infonegocios.biz/nota.asp?nrc=26118&nprt=1

      http://www.pablomontaldo.com/2011_07_01_archive.html

      http://www.elpais.com.uy/110706/pecono-577953/economia/Grupo-agricola-local-va-a-Wall-Street/

      http://www.santiagopaulos.com/noticias/catalogo-fundacionunion.html

      I'm not negative about the Spanish references, but I can't follow them. Someone else will have to take a look at them. The Reuters and FT sources are just short bios of Sartori as an officer of UAG, so they don't establish notability on their own. The same is true of the Bloomberg piece, which is an announcement of UAG acquiring land with a one-line comment by Sartori in it. -- BenTels (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

      • Comment Thanks for that. Regarding the Reuters and FT sources you are right, and I tried to avoid any misleading information by mentioning those sources were in the markets data section of both publications. As you mentioned those are short bios, so I believe they are relevant in this case. First, because in that way there is no need for original research. Second because those sources have high editorial standards, which guarantee their independency.Bla - uk (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)