Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Peña Sr.


 * 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   keep. Onetwo three... 03:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Daniel S. Peña Sr.

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

"unverifiable" (violates WP:V) facts mentioned in this article could not be verified. It was impossible to get information about the IPO of Great Western Resources in the 1980s from the London Stock Exchange, they could not confirm such an IPO and they did not have any information about it. Requested membership confirmation from the clubs mentioned, none (!) of them confirmed his membership or to even only know him. It is not verifiable whether or not he was involved in or if there was a $450 million dollar company. The companies mentioned cannot be found in any state corporate register. The one that can be found and where the register number on their website equals the one in the Jersey Channel Island company register, was founded in 2002, not in 1977 (!). This article is creating a myth where there is no substance.

"original research" (violates WP:NOR) the only verifications come from his own websites and probably friends.

"non-notable" and/or "does not meet WP:BIO" it seems to be a promotional tool to promote his seminars only and him as a speaker. The merits could not be verified so the person does not meet WP:BIO criteria.

"deleted before" the same page has been deleted before already twice without an AFD-discussion. Esinclair52 (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC) — Esinclair52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Article has been worked on to make it less POV, Google news archive search reveals numerous possible refs. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * @Beeblebrox: all of these links either come from paid-public-relations websites or don't even mention the person in question. --Esinclair52 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the coverage is a bit on the trivial side, and unfortunately much of it is pay-per-view, but are you seriously claiming that The New York Times, the Fresno Bee, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and the Austin American-Statesman are paid pr websites? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * not at all! I'm questioning the validity of the facts, none of the mentioned media has real coverage on file, tried the online searches on their websites and requested information from their editors and they didn't have any; not on Daniel S. Peña Sr. and not on Dan Pena.; not for the NY times, not for the Fresno Bee, not for the Worth Star Telegram and not for the Austin American Statesman -- and not for any other newspaper mentioned. In some links at the Google News collection you sent, Daniel S. Peña Sr. is mentioned, but never as the focus of the article. The others are, as you said, ppv.--Esinclair52 (talk
 * On a sidebar, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Even if the sources make the most outrageous claims, if a reader can verify what is written, it falls within policy and guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you. Did you ho ahaed and pay the money to read those articles? Otherwise, how do you know what the content of them is? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have those and much more, including corporate registry contents as well as statements of former biz partners etc. - as I said, I was researching an article for our paper and what I found was a trail of stuff, disputes, unpaid services, "facts" that are not confirmed, etc, that doesn't fit to the picture being painted online at all. --Esinclair52 (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Quote: "The trio--David Reecher, Dan Pena and Jose Alverez--together formed Great Wisdom Publishing Co" - looks like self-publishing there to me. Could be wrong. The book might have been chosen for publication entirely on its merit by an editor who didn't know it was by one of the bosses. Medina Ltd - based in Reading (pronounced redding) - can't find much. Website "under construction". The Guthrie Group - now.... "Head quartered at Guthrie Castle, Scotland, (Dan Peña’s personal estate) we have an established network of long-term relationships with professionals spanning four continents." from http://www.theguthriegroup.co.uk/aboutus.php Guthrie Castle does look like a nice place to have your wedding - http://www.guthriecastle.com/accommodation.php Same phone and fax as the Guthrie Group. No mention of Mr Peña. Interesting. Good financial sense to make your 'personal estate' pay its way, I suppose. I'd have expected separate phone and fax, though. Not mentioned in the article, but perhaps it's been removed as spam. References and Links - first the AMC one. Who is it by? Mr Peña or the feller whose name is at the bottom? Either way, it doesn't do much for me. Then there's his website - which does mentions seminars at the castle but not the weddings. Missing an opportunity there. There's nothing here that's truly independent. Perhaps it's all a puff, perhaps zealous editors have removed the Wikipedia-valued third party references by mistake.

Oh yes, the quote at the start of my ramblings. It's from http://www.forewordmagazine.com/ftw/ftwarchives.aspx?id=20000719.htm where the history and apparent bankruptcy proceedings of Access, a subsidiary of Great Wisdom, are described. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The Mumbai Cyber Crime Investigation Department is obviously investigating against Dan Pena: "Two US nationals came to Bangalore to set up a call centre which operates in illegal pornography sites. They got credit card details of over 1.5 million users in the US and used this to siphon off money through another site. Modus operandi: Daniel Pena and Bill Smith have websites from which you can download MP3 files. These have sublinks to four porn sites which are paid sites." (click here and read in the second half of the text) 85.25.139.99 (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you certain this is about the same person? It's not that uncommon of a name, if you Google it a lot of unrelated results pop up. Running a credit card flimflam from a porn and mp3 site does not seem like this guys style. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, I verified with the Mumbai Cyber Crime Dept. and they confirmed. They did not reveal the status of the investigations as it's ongoing. The "guys style", as you say, is a carefully painted picture that nobody seems to question --Esinclair52 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I must ask how you verified this information. Ironically, if this can be verified, it would add another level of notability that could be included in the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybody can call there and ask: Cyber Crime Investigation cell, Annex III, 1st floor, Office of the Commissioner of Police,

D.N.Road, Mumbai - 400001 - Tel: +91 - 022 - 22641261 -- that's what I did for my article (see above in the other context).--Esinclair52 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And suggesting wikipedia editors engage in their own original research is not the best way to go.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That might get you past your editor, but it is not considered verification by Wikipedia standards. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * so you are saying a newspaper's ethical standards are lower than Wikipedia's? What a verification is you can learn in the first semester of communication's study but I guess all of that is not important for the "Kings of WP" celebrating the victory of their power --- what else can one do than verify facts and then post the sources? That's more than the creator of the article ever did. --Esinclair52 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of your rationale for wanting this deleted is that it is original research and yet you ask us to accept your original research. You can't have it both ways. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this story stinks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.139.99 (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC) — 85.25.139.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Being poorly written is not a reason to delete an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note also that this IP address is the same as the one making the comment immediately above this. Dreaded Walrus t c 02:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per SPA nom.--Unionhawk Talk 23:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that is a valid reason, we are discussing the article and it's subject, not who nominated it or wrote it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @Unionhawk: I'm just new to this but my motives are neutral and surely not SPA as per its definition.--Esinclair52 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) Comment - most of the more blatant POV (And associated COI issues, seeing as the article creator seems to know the subject personally) was removed by DGG, and a bit more of the POV has been removed over the course of numerous recreations (if I remember correctly a previously-deleted version used to talk about his love of golf). However, the News search linked by Beeblebrox above are not convincing for me. The New York Times article is nothing but a passing mention, and the Powerhomebiz page is purely promotional. For a man who is the founder and chairman of a group that has supposedly overseen negotiations with governments around the world totalling billions of Euros, you would expect more substantial coverage. Our article paints him as a hugely notable figure, certainly, and it claims he has been featured in numerous newspapers. Where are those articles? Dreaded Walrus t c 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point, thanks. There are no such articles, at least I couldn't find them since I have been ordered to write an article about him for our paper and the more research I did over the past couple of months, the more holes I found. My understanding was that Wikipedia isn't a platform to promote one's book or seminar sales. --Esinclair52 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * by the way, the user who created and edited the article was Izonetech-ph - too much of a coincidence that Daniel S. Pena is Chairman of a company called iZone Technologies in the Philippines - another hint at the theory that much or all of this is just promotional. --Esinclair52 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.izonetech-ph.com/management.htm
 * You are correct, Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion, and users should not edit an article where they have a conflict of interest. However, The NY Times article, while doing little to nothing to establish Mr. Pena's notability, does seem to verify the contention that at least some people view him as a successful businessman. An article being inaccurate or poorly written is a reason to fix it not a reason to delete it. Also, while I did not pony up the dough to read the whole article, he is apparently on the list of the 60 wealthiest Hispanic-Americans. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you. WP claims to be an encyclopedia. As such, I understand it as a platform where not oneself but others write about one because of the importance of what that person contributes to contemporary history. With leaving that article in WP, we are all contributing just to one thing: to sales of his seminars and books and when one day a real investigative article bombs out everything that really happened, WP will have contributed to that questionable success by helping paint a picture as him being a notable person in the sense of an encyclopedia, which he isn't. Convincing some junior writer to think he is successful, is not difficult. But does he own the castle? Did he ever make any serious money (with the story around GWRI being at least questionable with even the London Stock Exchange having nothing on that!)? Who published this list of the 60 wealthiest Hispanic-Americans and when/where, I couldn't find the list nor him being mentioned in that context. In fact, he appears on no such "top x richest" list. --Esinclair52 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's odd, because you claimed above that you had paid for and read all the articles I mentioned. I guess you missed this one . If there are factual errors in the article, they should be removed, but policy is firmly on my side that that is not a reason to delete. See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * he is not on that list! (which you can check yourself easily by buying the article). If WP has the claim to be a real encyclopedia one day, it simply should not provide space for questionable and clearly promotional articles. That's all I'm saying, it's not about you or me being right; it's about WP being used as a promotion's tool for selling books and seminars on basis of a myth created by a clever PR-machinery not created by actual high volume of business deals as claimed. There is a trail of law suits and not-so-well-off companies which I am happy to provide you with, but not on this public forum, post your email on my talk page and I will share.--Esinclair52 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't post it here, and it has not been published in a reliable source, then it is useless as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If you have the article, perhaps you would consider re-reading it in order to discover why it came up in this google search and why there is even a quote from the article that uses his name clearly displayed on the search page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I found an interesting article in The Sunday Times, which is very careful to present present the subject's claims as claims rather than facts. This search, designed to catch the various forms of the name but remove most false positives, gets remarkably few hits for someone with this CV. The only other relevant independent source found by that search is this one in The Scotsman, which appears to confirm the subject's ownership of Guthrie Castle. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment Guthrie Castle: "The site is a privately owned hotel, managed by the Peña Family and access is restricted to guests with reservations for an overnight stay or to play golf." from http://www.castleuk.net/castle_lists_scotland/54/guthriecastle.htm "The 55 room castle was sold to the Penna family in 1984. After 19 years as their private residence, the Penna family has now opened Guthrie Castle to the public. Today it is a popular venue for fairy tale weddings and corporate programs. It can accommodate up to forty people." from http://www.scotland.com/castles/angus-dundee/guthrie/ I assume the 'fairy tale' refers only to the weddings... Peridon (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * have requested the Property Register from the Scottish authorities; these documents contain a description of the property, its tenure, the name and address of the owners, details of mortgage holder and other charges, covenants etc. --- will let know the outcome. --Esinclair52 (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for nominator I notice you are now adding some of this new information to the article. Does this mean you no longer believe it should be deleted? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I still believe the article should be deleted: of all the praise in the original article that supposedly makes the guy notable, I couldn't verify one single fact (!) - without being prejudiced, personally couldn't care less - but on the contrary, I could verify many facts and added some of them to the page for everybody to decide whether such a questionable story should get a platform here to promote his seminars and books -- the elements of the original praise story are not verifiable, which makes the article violate WP:V, in the light of the really available facts, the person is not notable; and rather than enabling to continue spread a story with big holes, the place in WP should not be granted. Especially because it's a living person, I would also not recommend it. If there is any proof for the praise, if there are any positive news mentionings, where are they, why can nobody find them? My guess is they would have been published, if there were any. Last but not least, the interest and participation would probably be a lot higher if he were as notable as the praise proposed. So, in summary: DELETE and stop from being created again. --Esinclair52 (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument does not make sense. You have added new information to the article, and provided some sources, yet you continue to state that he is not notable... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether I agree with it, but there is an argument to be made for deletion based on WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Nearly all available independent reliable sources appear to present the subject in a negative light, so it will be very difficult to produce an article that complies with those policies. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * with the new facts having come to light, I believe the article should stay in. At least it would contribute to people having a more critical look at the guy's story. It may help him to sell some books or seminars, but where else people will find an unbiased look at his claims? -- 206.53.153.163 (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm getting slightly confused as to whether the nominator is saying Peña is notable or not. As the article now stands, I feel there is a definite degree of notoriety notability. I wonder what else may turn up. It doesn't look like the bit of puff now that it did. Peridon (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with NBeale below and don't think that given the real facts visible now this guy is note-worthy; however I am also not objected to being a neutral platform. My personal opinion is it's not notable because the original puff-piece seems to have been mostly untrue. If it stays in, care should be taken, that over time not suddenly "the puff" is back and the (for him) not-suitable links disappear. --Esinclair52 (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as meeting requirements of WP:GNG and then continue diligent use of WP:CLEANUP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It all looks pretty bogus - and his major claim to notability seems to be being accused of dodgy dealings. NBeale (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comment above. It's going to be on my watchlist. I suggest others put it on theirs, too. (I'm not always at home.) Peridon (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think that the sources found are just about enough to show notability. This looks like a textbook case of the law of unintended consequences. And, btw, this has been on my watchlist since I first saw this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2009 (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.