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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Juan Sartori[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an Uruguayan businessman who does not seem to meet WP:GNG. External links are all homepages for companies that he is claimed to have founded, but they don't do anything to provide notability. His name doesn't immediately turn up anything special on Google/GNews/GBooks/GScholar. BenTels (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Juan Sartori article is quite relevant, specially for Uruguayans. He is an inspirational figure for people in that country, not only for his success as an entrepreneur, but also for his social commitment. Moreover, google searches display a lot of information about himself (just to mention a couple of sites: The National Business Review; El Pais; Financial Times;Espectador de Negocios). So, although his importance in Uruguay is far greater than in any other country, he is still an internationally relevant businessman as shown by the publications mentioned.(content editor)Bla - uk (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Apologies to Bla - uk; I didn't notice your comment before. It doesn't matter whether Juan Sartori is internationally famous or just reasonably well-known in Uruguay; as long as he is notable, he is notable. The National Business Review source you cited mentions a statement Sartori made, but Sartori is not the subject of it. Same for the FT and (as far as I can follow the Spanish) the other sources. So that doesn't help with WP:GNG. But if he is well-known in Uruguay, perhaps there are sources that are directly about him? -- BenTels (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep In the following lines, there are some reasons why I consider the article in question meets the notability criteria: "Significant coverage" - There are a number of sources that address the subject directly in detail. Some of those websites are provided below. The main topic of these sources are issues related to both Juan and his companies. Profile related websites: Interview for Uruguayan Media^[1]; Article in Uruguayan Media ^[2]; Chronicle in Uruguayan Media ^[3]; Markets Data - Reuters ^[4]; Markets Data - FT ^[5]; Opinion leader for the Uruguayan media ^[6]. Relevant transactions reaching international media: Article in Bloomberg ^[7]; Article in Latinamerican media ^[8]; Blog from a wikipedia contributor ^[9]; Article in Uruguayan Media ^[10]. Social Work in Uruguay: Artist Website ^[11]. "Reliable" - the sources provided above meet the reliable test since the majority of them consist of national and international newspapers with an editorial quality check. "Sources" - as provided by the Wikipedia guidelines all of the sources mentioned above are secondary sources. There are both Spanish and English sources, from different countries including the USA, New Zealand, UK and Uruguay. "Independent of the subject" - as provided by the Wikipedia guidelines all of the links provided in this comment meet the independency requirement, since all except for the last link were produced by writers not affiliated with the subject or its creator. The reasons previously given seem to be enough to evidence the notability of this person. So, in my view and in the view of many Uruguayans he deserves a stand-alone articleBla - uk (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment: I'm copying out the refences you cited here (inline citations don't work well in AfD articles):
    http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/217620/si-les-va-bien-a-los-accionistas-invertiran-mas/
    
    http://www.elpais.com.uy/110123/pecono-542623/economia/-Llegaremos-a-las-100-mil-hectareas-con-inversion-de-US-400-millones-/
    
    http://noticiasfdiuruguay.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/empresa-de-alimentos-emitira-hasta-us.html
    
    http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/officerProfile?symbol=UAGR.N&officerId=1612612
    
    http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Directors-and-dealings?s=UAGR:NYQ
    
    http://www.infoagro.com.uy/agricultura/253-un-buen-lugar.html
    
    http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/nz-farming-gets-offer-from-uruguay-s-union-agriculture-group-outbids-olam
    
    http://www.infonegocios.biz/nota.asp?nrc=26118&nprt=1
    
    http://www.pablomontaldo.com/2011_07_01_archive.html
    
    http://www.elpais.com.uy/110706/pecono-577953/economia/Grupo-agricola-local-va-a-Wall-Street/
    
    http://www.santiagopaulos.com/noticias/catalogo-fundacionunion.html
    
    I'm not negative about the Spanish references, but I can't follow them. Someone else will have to take a look at them. The Reuters and FT sources are just short bios of Sartori as an officer of UAG, so they don't establish notability on their own. The same is true of the Bloomberg piece, which is an announcement of UAG acquiring land with a one-line comment by Sartori in it. -- BenTels (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Comment Thanks for that. Regarding the Reuters and FT sources you are right, and I tried to avoid any misleading information by mentioning those sources were in the markets data section of both publications. As you mentioned those are short bios, so I believe they are relevant in this case. First, because in that way there is no need for original research. Second because those sources have high editorial standards, which guarantee their independency.Bla - uk (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Comment: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't use those sources at all, I'm just saying that they aren't enough by themselves to show notability. They can certainly serve as supporting sources for an article. -- BenTels (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep - I've looked and looked and I'm not convinced that a standalone article for Sartori is justifiable based on the sources presented here, and from what I cam across in doing my own searches. However, it might make more sense to morph this article into one about Union Agriculture Group which does appear to attract the coverage needed to establish per WP:CORP. My suggestion would be to have a small profile of Sartori who founded the company as a section in that article. If that is agreeable, I will take on the task of doing that at the close of AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Addendum: And I'll also add that I would appreciate and welcome Bla - uk's assistance in taking on such a task. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment That certainly sounds like a viable course of action to me. No objections on my side. -- BenTels (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - I can see the point of BenTels and Whpq, but I believe that a lot has been lost in translation and he still deserves a stand-alone article. I have edit it, so it reflects better the notability of this guy.Bla - uk (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.