Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julio A. Cabral-Corrada


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  10:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Julio A. Cabral-Corrada

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As the article says, "an emerging expert". That is usually translated here as "not yet notable"  DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * smells like self-promotion, delete. Guatauba1979 (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. First of all, this is not self-promotion, as the bio has been developed by me, the author or major contributor to 241 articles over the years.  A new debate has been emerging in Puerto Rico over its fiscal and economic situation and the Wall St. executive that has emerged the most in this lively discussion, being invited to speak in political analysis programs on radio, speak as a panelist in forums sponsored by very reputable organizations such as the Puerto Rico Chamber of Commerce and a frequent op-ed writer on fiscal  crisis matters in Puerto Rico's main newspaper, El Nuevo Día, has been the subject of this article.  If this article were deleted, when anyone tries to look up information on someone who has become a major figure in what is now the main topic of discussion in Puerto Rico and does not find it in Wikipedia, that person will conclude that we're not up to date and not a reliable source of objective encyclopedic information on a major participant in the most important topic being debated at present in Puerto Rico, as well as Wall St.  I have initially included 10 references in the article that clearly prove my point, which will be expanded as the article is expanded.  Others are invited to improve the article.Pr4ever (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the average WP reader is totally unaware of our standards requiring independent secondary sourcing before we include information in the encyclopedia, most especially information on a living person. This I'm sure does lead to disappointment or an otherwise negative impression on the part of some readers who find worthy topics absent; it may be that more efforts to explain the WP project to the readership are warranted. But we can't solve the problem by undermining the encyclopedia with potentially unreliable, unbalanced articles if we don't have the sources to create a balanced, reliable account. Can you point me toward secondary source coverage that is totally independent of Cabral-Corrada? I.e. not things he's written, organizations he belongs to, etc. This El Nuevo Dia story is pretty good although not entirely about him, and the others I can find are even briefer in their coverage of him: here (I'm not familiar with the organization but it seems plausible as independent and reliable); this one is a little more dicey (I'm not sure I buy the idea a newsletter like that should be considered independent); and the NYT source K.e.coffman pointed out. I'm not sure it adds up to substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources yet. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * keep a notable Puerto rican not known for crime is rare 2607:FB90:768:B9D9:562B:487B:2E91:140E (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I meant to comment earlier, none of this actually amounts to the needed substance and I concur with the nomination here. The IP above is not clear how this specific article is actually convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  03:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. When the expert fully "emerges" then it may be time to create an article. So far, I'm only seeing trivial mentions, such as NYT, which mentions the subject in passing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even though the subject's article is merely a "stub", I believe that with his published works and the fact that he is often cited in the media is a good enough reason to keep it. I don't know, but I think that as a stub, like most stubs, it may have the potential for a future expansion into a full and complete article. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Neutral pending more input on notability of involvement in potential Congressional ethics issue Innisfree987 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Have come to agree that this is a case of TOOSOON. I think many of the things Cabral Corrada has been involved in are encyclopedic material, but until we have independent secondary sources providing sufficient reliable coverage to develop a balanced account per WP:WHYN, we should not have an entry--not about any subject really but most especially not a biography of a living person. As it is, the entry already indicates the kind of balance and neutrality problems that arise in absence of robust sourcing; I tried to do some work to improve it, removing citations that don't support the attached claims, copy edits for accuracy and neutrality, etc., but the effort only persuaded me we don't presently have the sourcing to develop a reliable entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Good discussion here. Did some research and I think this is should be a keep. He seems to be a well recognized and respected leader there both in the financial and political realms. He was the Executive Director of the Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association (https://proyectoestrella.wordpress.com/tag/puerto-rico-statehood-students-association/) and also led the Absentee Ballot Campaign for Puerto Rico's Former Governor Luis Fortuno (http://www.metro.pr/locales/hijo-de-fortuno-asesorara-estudiantes-estadistas/pGXmha!bXmds4j2zOY2I/). Interesting as well, he was mentioned by the New York Times as a well-known "Wall Street Executive" during his time at Morgan Stanley (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/us/politics/puerto-ricos-prosperous-dc-power-couple.html). But most importantly, I think having the Island's most prominent newspaper, EL Nuevo Dia, calling him the intermediary between their government and Wall Street (http://www.elnuevodia.com/negocios/finanzas/nota/bonistasdispuestosanegociar-2184880/) during this high-profile fiscal crisis is more than enough to keep and expand article. These are all credible and serious sources of information. PuertoRicoAccuracy
 * So, you may have changed my view but I'm not sure it's quite in the way you want. The NYT does not say he's well-known nor that he's an executive, but rather that he's a broker. What it does say that might go toward notability is:


 * But in August 2014, Julio A. Cabral-Corrada, then a broker at Morgan Stanley, which had helped issue the $3.5 billion in debt, organized a fund-raising event at the Peninsula Hotel on Fifth Avenue in New York, openly hinting in the email invitation that attendees would have access to Mr. Pierluisi “to continue the dialogue with the investment community” as the negotiations in Congress continued.


 * House members are not allowed to “sponsor or participate in any solicitation that offers donors any special access,” the rules say.


 * And now that I look for it, there is more notice of Cabral Corrada as he relates to that issue, which became, if I understand correctly, the part of a Federal Election Commission inquiry into Pierluisi? E.g. here and here. So that might shift the weight on notability; I'd like to hear more opinions from others on this. I'll change my vote to neutral for now. But meanwhile the wordpress piece doesn't help at all on whether we have the reliable secondary sourcing to develop a balanced entry, and the Metro.pr is something, but two sentences does not substantially change what we have to work with here. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. 1. The NYT piece does say he is an executive: "Separately, a Wall Street hedge fund executive whose firm took part in a $3.5 billion bond sale in 2014 for Puerto Rico...". 2. Nonetheless, you may be right that the real notability is not with any FEC inquiry, because Mr. Cabral reportedly was not related to such inquiry (http://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/politica/nota/pidencuentasapierluisipordonativosensucomiteelectoralfederal-2195024/). 3. What you are probably referring to was the complaint filed against Mr. Pierluisi rather to the local electoral comptroller by Jorge Suarez (a political party opponent of Mr. Pierluisi). It seems given the lack of sourced references that the local complaint never went anywhere since the complaint was not referred to the FEC. Hence, one could infer that it was simply a vicious attack between political adversaries ahead of an electoral primary last June and Mr. Cabral unfortunately got caught up in that fire. 4. But anyhow, we think the real notability on Cabral Corrada rests upon the fact that he has been categorized by PR's main newspaper as an "expert" on PR's finances and an "intermediary between the government and investors" during their country's historic fiscal crisis. 5. Moreover, even though you dismissed it a little, credible PR news sources reference him as the former Executive Director of the Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association and a former Director of the Absentee Ballot Campaign for a former Governor. If all of this is not noteworthy, then we think we would need to revisit a lot of biographies and pages we have in our Encyclopedia! Thanks. PuertoRicoAccuracy
 * Thanks for your clarifications, to take them roughly in order:
 * Thanks for pointing out where the "executive" reference is from, and I do see now it's been repeated in other sources, both in Spanish and English. But frankly I think it's a mistake. According to the subject's own LinkedIn page (not a reliable source but not because people are likely to say they have a lower title than they actually do), he was an analyst, not part of the executive team any way one can construed the term--a place like MS has many VPs, and then a large layer of associates below that, and the subject was still a rung lower, at analyst. He was an executive only if you consider it possible for the overwhelming majority of staff at a given institution to all be "executives".
 * Thanks for clarifying between the two issues Pierluisi faced. However because we have now four secondary sources referring to the Cabral Corrada in relationship to the underlying fundraising question, I can't agree it's irrelevant: even unsubstantiated political attacks may be notable when sources cover them. Certainly, if we deem this subject notable, it will have to be included in the content of the article (partly for lack of other reliably sourced material to discuss.) I'm only not sure that it adds so much to notability that puts Cabral Corrada over GNG for an entry in the encyclopedia (especially with the due weight problems it'd likely introduce).
 * As I've already said but maybe it bears repeating: I do consider many of these activities noteworthy and encyclopedic. The issue is only whether enough secondary sources have in fact taken note of them in order to develop a balanced and reliable entry on this topic. It's a very common thing at AfD--arguably one of its most useful functions!--just exactly the revisiting of biographies and pages in our encyclopedia where someone had a good intention to describe a noteworthy topic, but it turned out there were not enough sources on that topic to develop a reliable, balanced entry. I think AfD is right to delete those whether or not the topic is worthy, because I don't want to see unreliable entries introduced into the encyclopedia. As for how that applies to this subject particular, the farther we dig, more questions seem to come up about whether we have enough sources to give a balanced accounting, so I'm leaning toward no. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but weak. Borderline WP:TOOSOON but I suspect not for too long, so just let the article grow with WP:EVENTUALly.  Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what you think about the neutrality/balance issues? Usually I'm really sympathetic to the "eventually" idea, it's dumb to delete something that will shortly be legitimate for inclusion--except if what we'd have up in the meantime is not just limited but potentially misleading. And I'm not sure if, for instance, including the campaign finance thing would be misleading, or if excluding it would be, but fuller sourcing would go a long way toward making sure we fulfill our duty to both readers and the subject to get it right. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a number of systemic biases in wikipedia by definition, and here we are constrained by the availability of reliable sources. We can only make the article reflective of what is available, so as long as we have not cherry a subset of sources, then the article will be as fair and balanced as we can make.  We must not fall victim to WP:IDONOTLIKEIT ie our own (unconscious biases).  The best we can do is reflect the world as it presents it self (unless we make a conscious decision to counteract systemic biases).  Aoziwe (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But the very principle of notability is that if we don't have enough reliable sources to give a balanced accounting, then we don't include the entry at all, rather than undermine the encyclopedia (and in this case potentially harming a living person) with a potentially unbalanced one-- WP:WHYN. I'm not sure I'm following, where does IDONTLIKEIT fit in? Innisfree987 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep is more reasonable. From what I'm reading...Cornell, Morgan Stanley, political standing in well-known organizations, social public involvement and visible leadership in Puerto Rico. What else? I mean, kudos. Plus, if he has been mentioned by the press as one of the main actors in their country's economic situation/process, then great; there's more info on an important situation. Bahuram15 —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 9 September 2016 (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.