Talk:Bernardo Javalquinto

Previous drafts

An argument has emerged that it is similar to previous draft. I have not seen it honestly. If someone can pull that out, will be good to look and compare and indeed, if there is no difference, let's speedy it and get it out of here. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A similar article with his full name Bernardo Javalquinto-Lagos was already deleted due to not achieving the minimum requirements of notability. As mentioned in the previous AfD nomination, Javalquinto has some mentions on media just like a lot of economists and entrepreneurs have, but that doesn't make it particularly relevant. In fact, the only relevant mention is his potential presidential candidacy... sure, some media articles presented his candidacy, but more like an anecdote than a relevant piece of news (when the news title is basically "Meet this person running for President" or "The Unknown Candidate" probably explains everything). After the announcement, no new articles have appeared and he has only been mentioned in general news talking about the 30+ potential candidates looking for signatures. So Javalquinto is just one of those 30+ pseudo-politicians, most of which won't even gather the required signatures. Tomorrow the Electoral Service will close the inscription of candidacies and Javalquinto won't be one of them for them.

Also, it's important to mention that both articles (this one and the original one deleted) were created by single-purpose accounts in an obvious intent to promote Javalquinto. --B1mbo (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

So, he wasn't able to gather the minimum number of signatures to run for President. He wasn't even able to gather the money to pay for his own website. Can we stop pretending he is relevant? @Nomadicghumakkad: --B1mbo (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey B1mbo, I am only seeing it from a notability point of view. I had clarified before, him running for president has no relation with my judgment of notability. There are plenty of articles discussing him because of the failed attempt to revive airlines as well and some other stuff. Then the whole controversy article contributes to WP:GNG. If person is being covered by media, even if for controversial things, it still contributes to notability. Hope this helps. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Nomadicghumakkad. Not all controversial things deserve an article and not all failed businesses deserve one either. The controversy regarding Latin American Wings should appear in that article and that's all, it wasn't even a big scandal here. And the reason that controversy regarding Javalquinto appeared was just in the context of his failed candidacy. The article was deleted in the past because it was considered the subject was not relevant, it shouldn't be kept only because a single-purpose account rewrote it and a minor controversy was added. Most of the article, at the end, is still promotional. --B1mbo (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Being promotional and not being notable are two independent things from what I know. I felt that the whole controversy of acquiring a work place and converting it into residence was pretty serious. The car thing seemed made up. There is a minor WP:Academic angle too but I didn't consider it because Google Scholar was not very impressive. But, I had a feeling that if this person would write research in Spanish, I am not sure how good GS would be to pick that up. Inability of GS picking it up should not lead to undermining the contribution of an academic. If such things happen, it would feel like whit-washing Wikipedia. If WP:Academic would be considered (since there are contributions to text books etc), this person might not even require WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. But, since WP:BASIC was being met, I didn't apply much of my mind to WP:Academic.

COI issues

There is previous COI also, check here [1]. This also could be UPE since past one clearly is UPE. But the declaration on user page only says 'connected' - so could also be someone from his election campaign. There are a lot of controversies that the creator didn't include (possibly trying to get those skipped to keep a clean image!). Have added those. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)