Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Estuardo Penedo


 * 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. If you wish to have a copy of the article to work on it as a draft, feel free to request it on my talk page. Regards  So Why  13:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Roberto Estuardo Penedo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. No in-depth articles, most references are single line mentions. Vanity/advert page. red dogsix (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a vanity project, not an encyclopedia article. None of the references confirm his notability. A Google search for "Roberto Penedo" did find someone who was the subject of a news article, and coincidentally has the middle name "Estuardo"; but he's clearly a different man. Maproom (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per the above comments. Vanity project. - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Struck for now - see below. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I cannot confirm it is the case, but Penedo was elected to the Guatemalan Congress for the post of (...) sounds like he was a Guatemalan MP, in which case he is notable. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If I have read the sources correctly (and I am relying on Google translate for some of them) the "Guatemalan Congress" of which he was an official was not the actual legislature of Guatemala, but a liaison and advocacy organization for Guatemala and Guatemalans, working in the United States. That is a different thing. He was also apparently an advisor to John McCain's campaign for President of the US, presumably on Latin American issues. It seems to me that with the various positions that he has apparently held, he OUGHT to be notable, but I have not as yet found the kind of coverage needed to establish this. DES (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As OlgaWills2017 makes clear below, he wasn't elected to the Congress but appointed by it. I'm still trying to ascertain what CONAMIGUA actually is - it doesn't seem to be a government department but may perhaps be a government-sponsored pressure group or a subdivision of some civil service department. His position within it was Deputy Secretary, ie: he was not the head. A part of the problem here is that OlgaWills2017 doesn't always understand the nuances of the English language (this is not a criticism, just a statement of fact that is affecting the article and also this discussion). - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * comment a fair amount of the article seems to hav been closely paraphrased from http://www.biography.international/2017/04/roberto-estuardo-penedo-rob-penedo-info.html#more or more probably both rely on some sort of "official bio" distributed by or on behalf of Penedo. DES (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable. Don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlgaWills2017 (talk • contribs)


 * DESiegel just want to clarify that Roberto Estuardo Penedo was officially elected by the Executive Branch of Guatemala AKA Congress of Guatemala, the lawmakers of Guatemala voted in majority to elect Penedo, it is a process same as the Senate confirmation here in USA for the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Defense, etc, etc, please feel free to follow this link Roberto Estuardo Penedo Subsecretario CONAMIGUA. Olga Wills (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That source seems to say he was appointed, not elected, and that he wasn't even head of the organisation. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Tigraan That's correct, Penedo is notable he was elected by the  The Guatemalan Congress to serve for their behalf in that Government position   Olga Wills (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Notable Maproom Roberto Estuardo Penedo, his full name is Roberto Estuardo Penedo Rivera, also uses his name as Roberto "Rob" Penedo. However, the Congress of Guatemala for official documents use his full mane. Olga Wills (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: DESiegel, That was an original article that I wrote for Wiki back in March, but it was very complicated for the first time user to understand all the rules, regulation and remarks of Wiki in order to keep the article, and it was removed. So I created Mr. Penedo's bio on http://www.biography.international/2017/04/roberto-estuardo-penedo-rob-penedo-info.html#more meantime we are working on creating an article here on Wiki.  I'm the writer of that article, and edited lot's of staff in order to meet Wiki standards (which aren't that friendly to apply with); however, I can put that page down at any time, that's not an issue here. My main concern is actually to save Penedo article on Wiki. Any help or advice will be much appreciated.  Olga Wills (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Sitush, Penedo served in one of the Guatemala's High rank governmental position representing the Guatemalan Congress who elected him for that position, as you know immigration is very important issue all over the world. Penedo also received an award from the Mayor of the city of Los Angeles in California, for his tremendous support and contributions for the Latino Community there. I found the copy of that award from the LA city archives. Olga Wills (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It would help if the article had actually said all this and explained it properly, including re: his name, what the Congress is (a wikilink?) etc. I'm in two minds now. I'm also very concerned when you say "we are working on creating an article here on Wiki". If you are connected to the guy then you should not be doing that and it is no wonder it reads like a puff piece. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sitush, when I said we I mean everybody here part on this discussion including you now, and no, I am not connected to anyone, but trying to save the article and learn as much as possible to create more articles in the future. But that may be possible only with the coordination with the other users and editors on Wiki in order to have it done correctly, that's is WE. Also, I had all the information you are asking linked to other Wiki pages (such as Congress of Guatemala), but it was removed by someone of the editors on Wiki. Olga Wills (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry. I'm going to strike my delete !vote above and take another look. I'm loathe to use Google Translate but maybe something will turn up. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For someone who is not connected to him, you sure seem to have followed him around a lot. All of the photographs are uploaded by you and they all claim to be your own work. Did you take them or not? If not, where did you get them from and who did in fact take them? - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sitush I have my sources, the information was provided to me and confirmed and I was there to take the pictures, this is just my first article on this subject, my main goal is CONAMIGUA and them I will expand with another article about the Mexican Immigration Institute as well, I also will start to investigate David Slorzano and other members related to this institution, and I will get the pictures too, with no doubt you'll surprise the pictures I will get according my resources. Stay tuned. I am sure all this articles I'm planning to write will contribute a lot on the understanding of immigration issues. Olga Wills (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you have a conflict of interest and should not be writing about CONAMIGUA at all. There's something not right here, sorry. I'm surprised, by the way, that there is no EXIF data for some of the images and that others appear to be in standard website 72 pixel format - it's an odd mix when it looks like three of them were taken on the same day. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , sorry, but I have my sources is not going to fly. Wikipedia allows you to edit even if you have a conflict of interest, but you have to be transparent about it. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't see your concern, you are wrong, the pictures weren't taken the same day. I don't have any conflict of interest here. So pictures here are not an issue, and now I don't even understand why you don't want me to write about CONAMIGUA, an article that I event haven't started yet, you are really confusing me, do you want to write on CONAMIGUA by your own? is that why? Olga Wills (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In my point of view and please correct me if I'm wrong, Wiki is an encyclopedia where anyone is free to wright an article if everything that you are saying is true and correct and contributes to enrich the knowledge of everyone. So, in that case I don't understand why Wiki is not allowing the regular people to publish an article? The other time I was trying to get familiar with Wiki rules, regulation, recommendation and remarks the article was removed and after that I received an email about a PAID writer charging over $150/hour to help me on my WiKi article, what a coincidence, right? Is that what it is? Wiki is not for regular people like me but for paid articles only? Olga Wills (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * if you have been contacted by someone offering to write a Wikipedia article for pay, it might be a scam, and it definitely is in breach of our terms of use (unless properly disclosed, which is unlikely). Please forward the email to info-en@wikimedia.org.
 * You are wrong on multiple counts when you say Wiki is an encyclopedia where anyone is free to [write] an article if everything that you are saying is true and correct. First of all, it's Wikipedia, not wiki. Second, anyone who will obey the policies is free to write, others get blocked. Third, our policies say that "true and correct" is not the standard; "verifiable" is (this is why I said I have my sources doesn't fly here: you must say what the sources are, and if you cannot, you should not say you have them). Fourth, even verifiable is not enough, because we only write about what is "notable" - which is the whole point here, because none is really doubting that there is a man named Roberto Estuardo Penedo out there who did most of the stuff written on the page, but many are doubting whether he is well-known enough to be the subject of an article. TL;DR:Wikipedia is for regular people who follow the guidelines (or have good reasons to break them).
 * About the pictures: people here have short nerves when it comes to copyright violations. If you post a picture that you found on the web, or that the photograph shared with you, or that an agency provided on request, it is most likely not allowed (by the guidelines, and by the law) to post it on Wikipedia. If the metadata of the picture shows that it was obviously not the standard "tourist takes a photograph" story, it will raise suspicions. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the 3 photos not being taken on the same day, well, he seems to be wearing the same clothes and, frankly, if you don't know him but happened to see him on several days in and around the same place and he posed for a picture on each occasion then that seems even more strange to me. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And then you just happened to see him when he met the Pope at the Vatican? Wow, the world is a small place. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OlgaWills2017, the article claims that Penedo/Rivera was "founder and CEO" of "Together for America", citing this source. The source names a lot of people but not him. It isn't good enough. I can see primary sources that say he registered the name - eg: this - but I don't know enough about US corporate law etc to know if that is significant and/or supports your claim. He could just have been acting as an agent. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Tigraan, I understand your point and can tell you that I'm doing this article with the purpose to contribute only, following this article I will write on CONAMIGUA and then about each relevant person related to that institution, I think my contribution will help to enrich people's knowledge about immigration. Also I will expand such information by writing and article on Mexico Immigration Institute. There is nothing on WiKi related to this subjects yet and on my point of view are a very important subjects. That is the only and true reason I am starting writing this first article to later on continue with the others of the same subject. Olga Wills (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The fault in your reasoning is ...[in] my point of view are [very] important subjects (...hence Wikipedia should have an article about them). That is not enough. What you think of them is irrelevant. What is relevant is what reliable sources say of them, and whether it demonstrate the "notability". Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sitush, I found this link that clearly state he is the CEO and founder of Together for America and putted the link but someone in the WiKi editors removed as happened to too many other links I already submitted. http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/corps/search_corps.php?DETAIL=368877&corp_type_id&corp_name=Together+for+America&agent_search&agent_city&agent_state&filing_number&cmd which is signed by Arkansas Secretary of State, which is a reliable source. Olga Wills (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the link I gave above. It is a primary source and it isn't particularly helpful. Or, at least, it wouldn't be if it was in the UK because it is common for people to set up corporate bodies etc as shells and then pass them on. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Tigraan, When i say "on my point of view" I am not referring to the article itself, I am referring to the importance to have articles concerning immigration. I am very clear that the article has to be about NOTABILITY with reliable sources but probably your lack of understanding on the Spanish language and its different terminologies according each Spanish speaking country is making this difficult for you guys to understand, google translation or any other computer translation service is no reliable and accurate. Olga Wills (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sitush Well, Together for America is in good standing up today and according that official record is active showing Penedo as CEO and Founder since 2011 to present, if we don’t believe in official record, what to believe in? Olga Wills (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That source does not say anything about the present. It is a record from 2011. And now I've found even more problems in the article, with the source about him being on the Latin American board supporting McCain's presidential campaign actually seeming to say no more than he was an adviser to McCain. Along with a few thousand others who could make that claim, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sitush FYI, when an entity is not active or is not in compliance with the law or is not current will show "REVOKED" or "NOT CURRENT" on its status, you can see clearly according the official e-document from the Secretary of State of Arkansas (a reliable source) in this case for Together for America the "STATUS" is "GOOD STANDING" that means the organization is current and everything its says on the document about the organization is accurate up to date. About John McCain, I have never see before a person interviewed by a reliable news paper of other country to be fake, so thousand that make that claim is very narrow to impossible, I guess? Again I think probably your lack of understanding on the Spanish language and its different terminologies according each Spanish speaking country is making this difficult for you to understand, google translation or any other computer translation service is no reliable and accurate. You cannot discredit reliable news papers interviews even if you are not sure what its saids or don't understand 100/100. Olga Wills (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is you who is not understanding. You've been adding sources that quite simply do not support the statements and/or are unreliable. It seems to me that you're applying your personal knowledge to the article first and then trying to support it with some sort of citation. That's not a great way to build an article. And, by the way, I'm not fluent in Spanish of any variety, sure, but I can get around - that interview piece about the McCain campaign only mentions McCain's name twice and is quite clear in saying Penedo was at that time an adviser. I'm not saying Penedo was faking it, I'm saying you were, intentionally or (more likely) due to the reason I've just stated. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Sitush, Don't get mad, there is no reason to loose control, I think we are all here to learn from each other in one way or other. I'm trying to illustrate reliability, the Secretary of State of any state is reliable, if you don't agree, you'll be the first person I have been chatting that says otherwise, about the article, you don't need to mention 1000 times a name or something to make a point that is why probably with no offense is hard for you to understand how reliable the source is. I am not here to play judge and trial, I'm here to write an article that will be the beginning of more to come. You are saying I am faking intentionally or for the reasons you stated, I think you are not qualify to review this article or any other article at all if you are judging people for what you think and not for the article itself due to your lack of knowledge or understanding of the subject, that is unprofessional and unethical. I have been submitted reliable sources but in your point of view are not reliable to disqualify my article and then you can write about CONAMIGUA and Penedo by using third parties of curse. I discovered Penedo, I discovered CONAMIGUA and all other subjects about immigration derivate from, NOT YOU! Olga Wills (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sitush may not be as familiar with Penedo as you are, but they are certainly more familiar with Wikipedia editing, and therefore better qualified to say what kind of sources we need for what kind of claim. Honestly at that point you should drop the stick, but if you want to keep arguing, you will have better luck if you focus on Wikipedia's policies (please read them). Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OlgaWills2017, I am not getting mad about the article or, indeed, you. I think there is a bit of an issue regarding English language comprehension and a major issue regarding Wikipedia's policies etc relating to verifiability, reliable sources and notability, with probably some sort of conflict of interest thrown into the mix. There are a lot of "citation needed" tags in the article for which I am unable to find sources, and a lot of them seem to relate to his personal life and things he has done outside CONAMIGUA. Can you provide reliable sources for that stuff? Right now, it looks like it is your personal knowledge about the guy. I'm afraid that it isn't adding up and unless I find something fairly soon it is likely I will reinstate my delete !vote, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As another example of a problem, even assuming Penedo was a significant player in the Together with America organisation, I can't find a single reliable source that mentions him and Clinton. Just being head of an organisation, even a notable organisation, doesn't make the individual notable - see WP:NOTINHERITED. The same argument applies to his role in CONAMIGUA. And the honorary degrees that he has allegedly been awarded seem to have come from insignificant institutions, including the one that I have removed that originated from the rather notorious degree mill called Bircham International University. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The National Business School referred to in the article would likely be this place. Unfortunately, I can't see a mention of Penedo anywhere on the website and it has some severe design problems for a school that purports to be high-class etc. I can't find any other source that mentions him receiving an honorary degree from the place, although I suppose that might be a WP:SYSTEMIC issue regarding news sources in Guatemala. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice. I will try to rewrite the article one more time following the steps you mentioned, let's see how it goes this time. But I will need few days to complete it. Best Olga Wills (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While you have no deadline to rewrite the article, you need to provide correct sources right now before it gets deleted. See this section of "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a helpful advice. The article has been placed Under construction. Everyone is welcome to help build the article to have it ready according wiki standards. Looking forward to it. Olga Wills (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article is switched under construction status now, so how to remove it from deletion list? Can it be done on the article page or how it can be removed from the list for deletion? Thanks. Olga Wills (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * the "Under Construction" tag has no bearing on this discussion. 7 days after the discussion was started, or any time thereafter, an admin or an experienced editor may close the discussion. Common outcomes are "Delete", "Keep", and "No Consensus". Other possible outcomes include 'Redirect" and "Merge" but those don't seem to apply here. You need to find sources and either add them to the article, or simply list them here, in time for editors to read them, and be persuaded that they establish notability for Penedo, and express that view, before those 7 days are up. It may be quicker to list sources her as you find them, and only after that add them to the article. DES (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I'm looking at other wiki articles of Guatemalan politicians to understand better the requirements about type of sources needed for the article, so Edmond Mulet is a Guatemalan politician, there is an article about him exist on wiki and everything, but in the article only 3 sources of references are provided! I don't see any references for the majority of his article, there is no sources provided to cover the article a way it is presented, and in Penedo article there are requests about citations almost in each line despite the link provided for it (the majority of which just mysteriously disappeared...) What is wrong with that picture? Olga Wills (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , this is an argument known on Wikipedia as Other Stuff Exists and it is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It never does any good. The response is always "that other article may be sub-standard, but that is no reason to have another sub-standard article", or indications of difference between the two articles. An article mut be supported or argued against on its own content, and on the relevant Wikip[edia policies and guidelines. DES (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That said, while the Edmond Mulet article does need additional sources, each of the three sources cited is primarily about Mulet, and says something very relevant about him. In contrast, let us look at the sources now cited in the article about Penedo:
 * http://www.bircham.us/graduation/individual-photos.html says that he received an honorary degree, but says nothing about what he received it for.
 * http://www.deguate.com/artman/publish/noticias-guatemala/es-necesario-hacer-revisiona-proceso-de-deportaciones.shtml#.WRdyENwpC71 is basically an interview with Penedo. It reports what he says, not what others say about him, so it does little to establish his notability, beyond saying that he "advised on processes in immigration courts and state hearings, as well as the Governor of the State of Arkansas" and that he was then "Currently working on John McCain's presidential campaign." This doesn't help much.
 * http://lahora.gt/hemeroteca-lh/busca-integrar-conamigua seems to be largely a set of statements by Penedo, made while he was a candidate with a number of others for the leadership of the Executive Secretariat of the National Council of Attention to the Migrants of Guatemala. Again, this shows what he said, not what others said about him, although the candidacy is not without relevance.
 * http://old.congreso.gob.gt/archivos/acuerdos/2008/gtalx52-2008.pdf I cannot translate.
 * https://radiolaprimerisima.com/noticias/38112/guatemaltecos-viven-un-nuevo-holocausto-en-estados-unidos is again entirely a statement by Penedo, made while he was a candidate. It does not say anything about what others think of him. It does not describe or discuss him.
 * https://www.pressreader.com/usa/el-diario/20090218/281719790483600 reports 2 sentences that Penedo had to say about a problem, and various facts about the problem. It again does not say anything about Penedo, nor discuss him in any way except for reportign what he said.
 * http://www.deguate.com/artman/publish/noticias-guatemala/inversion-extranjera-podria-alcanzar-los-us-900-millones.shtml#.WRd2P9wpC72 has half a sentence about Penedo, saying that "Congress appointed Erick Maldonado and Roberto Penedo, as secretary and deputy secretary, respectively, of the Conamigua,..." aside from that he is not mentioned or discussed. Thsi what wikipedia calls a "passing mention" and it does little for notability, beyond confirming that he held the post of assistant secretary of the Conamigua.
 * None of these cited sources has any significant discussion of Penedo, or reports any detail about anything that he has done. Better sources are really needed. DES (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like OlgaWills is reinstating sources that were removed earlier because, as DES suggests, they don't really add anything of value to what is already said. And I stress again, an honorary degree from BIU isn't a notable achievement - it is far from being a respectable academic institution. This is a lost cause and I shall be reinstating my delete vote later. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: it says on the top of the article "This article is an orphan", how to link it to the other articles the right way? Olga Wills (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This question has now been answered at Teahouse. Please keep discuss here to the matter at hand - whether to keep or delete the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thanks Everyone for this discussion even I don't share your opinions completely it was very good learning process for me. I will write another article in the future about another person, let's see how will go. Olga Wills (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete DESiegel has done a good job analyzing the sources available after several days of debate, and they are not sufficient to establish notability. As for Edmond Mulet, of course that article can be improved. However, he clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN since he was elected to his country's legislature. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I've had enough of this. I've searched high and low for sources, I've gone through the ones that were provided and I've tried to make sense of things but there are just too many unknowns, too many questions and pretty much nothing that substantiates his notability. At best, he seems to be playing second fiddle to someone else everywhere. - Sitush (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing the notability guidelines. I have searched for sources but can't improve on what DESiegel has found, which isn't significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per deleters and DESiegels look at sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2017 (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.