Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victorino Noval Foundation

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. No consensus to keep the article. If Victorino Noval is eventually created and it would be helpful to merge the contents of this article, just ask me. czar 22:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victorino Noval Foundation[edit]

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

The Victorino Noval Foundation was suspended by the State of California. It is not an IRS recognized non-profit. The organization didn't do the things they stated they did. The person behind this fake foundation is Victor Jesus Noval aka Victorino Noval who is a convicted felon. He swindled HUD out of $60,000,000. See the references I just added to the page. He is using this page and other fake foundation pages to make him appear to be legitimate so people will invest in his current real estate "deal." He is being sued in bankruptcy court over the Vineyards Beverly Hills property which he does not own.Mary Cummins (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victorino Noval. I have read about Noval in The Beverly Hills Courier for the past few years. He appears to be notable as an investor and philanthropist. His BLP could include a subsection about his foundation.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing this AFD. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The foundation does not appear to be notable, having no substantial third-party attention. The few articles I find in The Beverly Hills Courier are just snippets from press releases. The foundation's namesake seems to be mainly notable for his criminal history and fails WP:SUSTAINED. RichardMathews (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's also a film producer. I think we would pass GNG.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Victorino Noval. All of the things stated by the nominator would not make him non-notable. If anything, they would tend to support his notability. We don't judge whether some-one id a good person or not, just whether they have generated reliable source coverage. There is at least reliable and ongoing coverage of involvement in a serious allegations of misconduct. That passes WP:GNG, but for the person, not the foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs)
Delete Clearly written to make a point, but the organization is blatantly not notable, nor has any Wikipedian produced an article about the principals thereof. Imdb is a wretched source for the purposes to which is it used here, and deletion is the simplest and best course at hand. Redirecting to a non-notable BLP which does not exist is out of the question in this case. Collect (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -

The article seems to have a number of sources that would not fit the definition of reliable, secondary sources - like IMdB and ancestry.com. It's also a very weird page, with different information in the intro than is in the body of the article. Based on this, and the comments above, it seems a good case for "delete" or "merge" to me.
I don't understand the comments about merge to the red link Victorino Noval. Is that because it was recently deleted? Or, rather than a merger, is the suggestion to create an article about Noval and include some information about the foundation?
Lastly, the nominator has more than a passing interest in the deletion of the article, per her edit here, in which she says in the edit summary "removed defamatory item posted about me", which I agree with, that should not have been posted for a number of reasons (it came from a blog (not a reliable, independent, secondary source), it has no encyclopedic value, and it was soley meant to hurtful).—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Yes, I think we should create: "Victorino Noval is a Cuban-born American film producer, real estate investor and philanthropist...". He passes GNG and there are lots of reliable third-party sources on google. Obviously what we have right now is a horror show (and an attack page?), although this version was not as bad.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, you may want to look at: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Victorino Noval Foundation.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzig20s, That is helpful background information - and the version you provided looks like it would be a better place to start to merge the information into a new article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reply to CaroleHenson who is now stalking all my edits on Wiki since I edited a mural page she's watching. The user added false and defamatory info about me in the Victorino page in retaliation for my removing false information about the foundation and its founder. I have nothing to do with the foundation. No information about me should have been included in their page. Mary Cummins (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Cummins, I am not stalking you, I am trying to understand what is going on, per Talk:Pomona Envisions the Future#Removal of citations and images and your past history mentioned on your talk page. I have commented on two of your edits. One that I became aware of from my watchlist. As you can see, regarding this article, I agreed that the information should have been removed.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[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.