Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Bertorello

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. And a hearty thank-you to Torc2 for the in-depth anaylsis and neutral presentation of the content of the sources in the article. This debate came down to 1 issue: is there substantial non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to support context for notability? This was clearly shown to not be the case. I was convinced that parties on both sides of the debate made extraordinary efforts to locate sources. Perhaps the subject of this article will have sufficient sources available in the future to rewrite the article, if the claims of his sucess and influence are anywhere near accurate. JERRY talk contribs 03:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pablo Bertorello

Pablo Bertorello (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a tough one.. the vast majority of the editing seems to have been done by a single use account, who has been adding a massive amount of sources. Perhaps trying too hard to prove a point? Does 28 sources (mostly blogs?) and make someone "notable", and "entrepreneur", and "inventor" and "famous"? Maybe I'm being pedantic.. Rehevkor (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not looking through all of these right now, but a blogspot blog, and especially a self-published one, is very far from being a reliable source.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - An article on "Pablo Bertorello" by an SPA named Pmrbertorello? Clear COI and violation of WP:AUTO. Even putting that aside, there's no notability established and the sources are almost all blogs, trivial mentions, or make no mention of the subject at all. There's a little bit of material on what he's done, but really nothing about Bertorello himself.Torc2 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. 12 patents verifiable at US Patent Office make Bertorello a notable inventor; articles in Wall Street Journal, Career Journal, and several other print magazines (that could/should be produced if notability is still an issue) should remove any doubts; multi-million user adoption verifiable at skype.com for products created by the company founded by Bertorello make him an entrepreneur to watch. Your careful edits of the entry to remove lesser blogs is appreciated. Please note that SkypeJournal is a reliable source, as are others taken out. Are more feature print articles necessary to address notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmrbertorello (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The patents themselves are irrelevant; anybody can file them and their acceptance does not establish the inventor as notable. Reviewing the current references one by one by WP:N (and WP:V) standards:
      • The WSJ article is a trivial mention in an article about a different subject, not significant coverage.
      • The Nividium.com PDF (which, incidentally, is marked "confidential") seems to be an internal memo and doesn't mention Bertorello at all.
      • YouTube cannot be used to establish notability as it is not independent and not a reliable source.
      • Download counts of a program do not establish notability for the developer; it's not independent coverage of the topic.
      • The patents are not independent coverage and do not establish notability of the inventor.
      • The second WSJ article is also a trivial mention and only mentions Bertorello's name once.
      • The Spanish links:
        • The first is an interview on a webpage. This is probably the strongest source, but still looks like it's some form of blog with a minimal audience.
        • The second is just a translation of the second WSJ article.
        • The third is a snippet that mentions Bertorello. It has no byline and doesn't appear to be anything more than a press release.
        • The fourth is a brief mention in a some kind of government newsletter.
      • Gigaom.com is a blog and not a reliable source.
      • This looks like an email or press release of some kind, and isn't about Bertorello himself.
      • Gigaom.com is still a blog.
      • The Oracle press release doesn't mention Bertorello at all.
    • In other words, there's a lot of trivial mentions about products and companies Bertorello worked with, but not about Bertorello himself. And none of this addresses the WP:COI issues and that this article seems to be little aside from self-promotion. Torc2 (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. One significant Wall Street Journal reference, and another using him as an example, which implies he is notable enough to use as an example. Should be enough to satisfy notability concerns. The main issue is content, and specifically avoiding the problems of WP:Autobiography. I think if User:Pmrbertorello will agree to make further suggestions on the talk page rather than edit the article directly (except for typos and WP:BLP issues, of course), there shouldn't be any problems. As for SkypeJournal, you may be right, but the one I looked at could really be used only for background information. Gimmetrow 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Most of the sources are non-reliable, the rest are trivial mentions. Patents are irrelevant. --L. Pistachio (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This isn't Bill Gates, but the two WSJ mentions are enough to establish notability. The other refs don't need to establish notability, and may or may not be useful background info. Gimmetrow 06:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Each article only mentions his name once. One seems to be a blog or blog-type article at that. They are both trivial and do not establish notability. —Torc. (Talk.) 07:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Which WSJ article are you claiming is a blog? One WSJ article mentions his "remarkable achievement". The other uses him specifically as an example of an Argentinian launching a startup. If he weren't notable in some degree, that wouldn't be a very useful example, now would it. Gimmetrow 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Career Journal" one. And no, it doesn't matter if they say that he's made "remarkable achievement"; the article isn't about him, and his name is only mentioned in passing. It isn't "significant coverage" as required by WP:N: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" - Does either WSJ article do this? —Torc. (Talk.) 09:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't see how the first one is a blog. And the second one, despite your assertion that it "only uses his name once", seems to have some extended discussion, and seems to use his name three times. Gimmetrow 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You're talking about this being the second WSJ article, right? I only see his name once. Neither one is addresses the subject directly in detail; only some of the work with which he is associated. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, the first one has his name three times, quickly in succession. The only thing actually about Bertorello himself though are the words "Argentinean-born inventor". That's not sufficient detail to meet WP:N. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Read this carefully. Name is there three times, including quoting him. Seems a non-trivial mention to me. Gimmetrow 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK, they don't use "Bertorello ". This still isn't non-trivial coverage of the individual, and is definitely not "significant" by any stretch of the imagination. —Torc. (Talk.) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Again, this isn't Bill Gates, but the one WSJ article addresses the subject in some detail, giving where he worked and his wife's name. Would it matter if this were an article about Verosee (the company) rather than him? Gimmetrow 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
←"Less than exclusive" means the coverage can be about more than one topic; the example given in the footnote illustrates what they mean. If this article had "significant coverage", it wouldn't be excluded just because it also covered another party. I'm not saying that the reason the coverage is trivial is because there's more than one person mentioned; I'm saying it because the coverage isn't about Bertorello personally to the level required for WP:N. The WSJ articles, which seem to be the only ones that are being considered, and which actually are only linked to in reprinted form (they're not on wsj.com), include this as their total coverage of Bertorello personally:
  • "Argentinean-born inventor"
  • "...Broadreach chief Pablo Rodríguez Bertorello to return home after nine years in the U.S. and launch a start-up..."
  • "...who launched Broadreach with his savings from six years as an Intel Corp. engineer and that of his wife Elizabeth..."
That's every word of personal coverage. I'm sorry, I just honestly don't see that as "Significant coverage"; I don't see that as "addressing the subject directly in detail". The Verosee question is less clear, but I'd still lean towards 'no' - the second WSJ article doesn't mention it at all; the first one does, but is it enough? I don't think so. Another relevant quote from WP:N is in its definition of 'sources': "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." That says to me they're expecting either greater detail or a lot of different articles if the coverage is this brief. —Torc. (Talk.) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
We have an article called "Argentina's High-Tech Chance". The first example given is "Broadreach Software", including the statement: "The factors that allowed Broadreach chief Pablo Rodríguez Bertorello to return home after nine years in the U.S. and launch a start-up are the same ones leading many technology companies to Argentina." This is followed by citing two of Bertorello's opinions: one as a paraphrase and one as a direct quote. It seems to me that he's not just someone random guy being quoted, but an Argentinian businessman notable enough to quote. The other WSJ article (by a different author on a different topic) refers to him as "Argentinean-born inventor", which seems to be what he's known for, and describes his "remarkable achievement". These are more than the "one-sentence mention" described in the footnote of the WP:N guideline. Gimmetrow 04:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The "one-sentence mention" isn't a minimum threshold; it's an example of the extreme. It's a "well, obviously not this" example. That same footnote states that "the 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial" - you don't think the real aim is somewhere in between? That maybe notability doesn't require two full-length books, but it might require more that three dozen words total? I don't think there's much more point to us debating this; we obviously disagree over what constitutes minimum independent coverage. This as coming anywhere close to what the minimum requirements are; coupled with the clear self-promotion and WP:COI and WP:AUTO violations, I really don't see how this could be kept. —Torc. (Talk.) 04:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless you are accusing me of COI and AUTO, it's not an issue. I suspect there is systemic bias at work against non-English sources. The nomination and the first comment pertain to an article in a bizarre state. You've done nothing to improve the article, and you didn't even read the two WSJ articles correctly. Two mentions in the Wall Street Journal are quite enough for a stub. Gimmetrow 07:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's clear I'm not, and although you have edited the article since it was posted, I still think its creation represents COI and AUTO violations. I've "done nothing to improve" an article I believe has no place here. Is that supposed to be criticism? It's not even accurate. I did search for other usable instances of his name and found none. I took the time to review each link one by one to see if they met WP:RS and WP:N. And it doesn't matter how prestigious the WSJ is, or that I didn't notice that one of the articles referred to him as "Rodríguez"; what matters is the content of the articles themselves and the nature of the material. What matters are mentions are scarce, superficial, and trivial. —Torc. (Talk.) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I see two WP:RS articles with two or three paragraphs on him, and I consider that enough for a stub. (P.S. I'm the one who converted Verosee into a redirect.) Gimmetrow 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that should be redirected and mentioned in Skype instead? —Torc. (Talk.) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - not-yet-notable businessman. Maybe in a few years he'll become notable; but at present, he simply doesn't qualify. (I've also given the author the standard COI warning.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You should not have given the COI warning. That issue was pointed out to the user quite a while ago. Gimmetrow 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As far as I see through this conversation is that you are arguing whether or not he was mentioned in a significant fashion in a news article or not. As far as I see, whether he was mentioned once or twice in an article or whether he had a whole article to himself, the only notable thing he did is the Skype file transfer program. Unless I missed something about some hidden patent amongst his twelve total, he does not seem notable, regardless of his news coverage. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So if he was discussed in 20 articles, it wouldn't matter? No point discussing this further. Gimmetrow 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • weak delete there WSJ mentions seem small and don't quite WP:BIO but I'm really on the fence on this. If anyone can find other sources that would likely make me change my mind. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Changing to weak keep the Spanish sources seem to maybe be ok although one of the three appears to be more or less simply a translation of a WSJ article. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This version included some non-English sources. Gimmetrow 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you translate them for us possibly? I see his name mentioned. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Nevermind, Babelfish gave a decent approximation. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The problems with the foreign-language links were discussed above in my post of 07:23, 7 February 2008. One is a WSJ reprint, one is not from a reliable source, and two are trivial mentions. —Torc. (Talk.) 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. I agree that the WSJ translation isn't helpful (as I remarked in my comment above)- I'm afraid that the other mentions while arguably trivial are enough to push me over to weak keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep, speculation of whether this is a self-written article is a irrelevant. Although I personally feel this person is non-notable, he does barely fall within the guidelines at WP:BIO#Basic criteria. --Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 03:37, 21 February 2008 (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.