Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnulfo Ventura


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Arnulfo Ventura

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Seems to be an advert for the subject. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, per:
 * Nisen, Jeremy (August 8, 2008). "Fresh Business: Stanford Grads' Agua Fresca Venture Invokes Tradition With a Modern Twist." Hispanic Business Magazine. Accessed May 2012.
 * Craven, John. (November 2, 2010). Video: Visit with Bonadea Drinks. BevNET Magazine. Accessed May 2012.
 * Here's another source with some mentions, but not quite significant coverage:
 * Korn, Melissa and Light, Joe (June 7, 2011). "On the Lesson Plan: Feelings." The Wall Street Journal. Accessed May 2012.
 * However, the first two sources in this comment are comprised of significant coverage from reliable sources about the person; hence keep the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete, as G11, entirely promotional I consider the press coverage somewhat promotional, and the WSJ   article is actually about the educatioal program he merely attended. There might be  a chance for an article on the company. But not with the present article   content;  even if the coverage was better the article would be a G11.  This was the sort of article many of us were afraid of when we talked about paid editors, exactly the sort of thing that belongs on a website as an advertisement and disgraces an encyclopedia. That the Hispanic community has an increase in diabetes does not show the notability of this particular drink, or the person who runs the company that makes it. I am extremely dubious about articles that talk about the founder's lofty motivations, whether the article be about a company or a school or a charity--this is a 99% guarantee of promotional writing. It's what PR agents do automatically for a living. Let them do it if they think it does any good, but elsewhere.  DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article has been significantly copy edited, and the previous promotional tone in its prose has been eliminated. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  01:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, the rewrite wasn't effective. Since you're apparently an SPA just for this subject, it's safe to assume that each and every usable source has been included.  On that basis it's abundantly and embarassingly obvious he's non-notable. BTW, one of the sources, when accessed, quote appropraitely says simply, "Sorry, there is nothing here."  That about sums it up.  EEng (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not a single-purpose account "just for this subject" whatsoever; a faulty assumption with no basis in reality. Also, my rewrite was effective in removing promotional tone that was previously in the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I sloppily picked up your name from the article history instead of that of the SPA who originally created the article, and for that I apoligize profusely. But despite your self-congratulation, the article remains embarassingly strained puffery.  EEng (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the Hispanic Business Magazine and BevNET sources in my !vote above? Both are comprised of significant coverage that address the topic in detail. The style of the article can be addressed by copy editing. The sources remain valid and comprised of significant coverage. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bevnet is obviously a puffpiece, HBM less obviously so until the end: "With his life experiences, financial background and masters degree, Ventura is well placed to be running his own company." The Hispanic Trending article is explicityly marked as a press release. None of this can be used for notability. EEng (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything on this page whatsoever about this news article being "marked as a press release". It's a "News Column", per the article's header. Would you consider anything from BevNet Magazine a "puff piece", or just the particular article cited in my !vote above. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I said Hispanic Trending was marked Press Release, not HBM. I'll let others evaluate the sources for themselves. This is routine puff coverage for a young entrepeneur.  EEng (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see now. The Hispanic Trending piece is an external link in the article, is not being used as a source in the article, and isn't particularly relevant regarding the topic's notability within this discussion. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep the article has factual value. It may need to be rewritten so it is not as much of an advertisement, but there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A list of vegetarian restaurants that allow smoking also has factual value, but that's not a very good argument for that being a Wikipedia article -- see WP:ITSUSEFUL. Can you address the questions of notability and significant, independent coverage? EEng (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Co-creator of a non-notable beverage. (I checked Google News Archive to see if Bonadea beverage itself might be notable enough for an article, but no; all I found was a few mentions in trade magazines.) As for his personal notability, he gets a little coverage but not significant enough to pass WP:BIO. Maybe it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. It also looks like a case for Melanie's Law: If an article refers to the subject by his/her first name, the subject almost always turns out to be non-notable. In this case it looks like the article was written by the subject himself, using the username Aarutnev (get it?). --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Aarutnev = "Article About Routine Unnotable -- 'Til Notability Established, Vamoose!" EEng (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The notability is not given via the sources provided, mainly secondary mention which fails to set WP:GNG. BTW, Northamerica1000 is not a SPA. From my experience, he is more of an inclusionist who sees value in every article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - DGG is absolutely correct. This article is completely promotional and this gentleman isn't notable. WP:NOTRESUME  --Joshuaism (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2012 (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.