Talk:Café Rico

My edits to the article

My edits to Cafe Rico were made in good faith in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. I do not agree that the article meets the WP:SELFPUB criteria, in many of its aspects. The criteria states:

• "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;"
  • I would argue that several claims within the article, which use the company's own website as the source, try to do just that:
    • "It was the first agricultural cooperative union in Puerto Rico." (That is a notable claim, but who else backs it up?)
    • "It is the only coffee packaged in a vacuum, a technique used to preserve the coffee's aroma." (sounds like an advertisement)
    • "This will make the Las Americas location "the largest coffee roasting location in Puerto Rico" and the facility "the most modern coffee roasting facility in the Caribbean." (those two statements are not in the source it cites from)
    • "The company has $10 million in resources, with reserves of $4 million." "During fiscal year 1962-63 the total volume of the cooperative was $35 million." "In the 1930s, the company had over $300,000 in escrow at the bank of Baltimore." "Annual 1965 sales are over $8 million." (this information should not be in the article, unless it is publicly distributed in reports, which are usually audited, or are reported by fiscal and credit agencies, such as SEC, Moody's, Fitch, etc. Any company can claim how much it earns and owns, but it needs to be backed up with independent sources.)
• "the article is not based primarily on such sources."
  • There are two main sources to this article: the Perla Del Sur article, and the company's website. The only two notable claims that the Perla article states is (1) that the company's products represent 60% of Puerto Rico coffee sales and (2) that the company renovated its Ponce facilities to consolidate its manufacturing there, and (3) that he company owns the Cafe Rico, Cafe Rioja, and Cafe Yaucono brands. Now, the first claim is a very important one, requiring equally important sources. I'm not sure if the author of the article and the newspaper investigated that claim, but assuming they did, we can leave it in the article. The second and third claims are not controversial, so obviously they can stay. All other claims and information in the article are either unsourced or use the company's website as a source. If the information is self-verifiable and non-controversial, such as the company's locations, list of products, its headquarters, and its past presidents, then I'm okay with the information staying in the article. However, the claims that I stated above do not meet the WP:SELFPUB exceptions, and constitute red flags ("surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple high-quality sources"), so I removed them.

Apart from that, I also removed the Past Presidents and Board of Directors list because I do not deem them necessary in a company article. Most articles I've seen only discuss key people related to the company, not its entire governing body, past and present. What information does this bring the reader of a Wikipedia article? If they want to find that information, its better they access the company's website.

I'm sure we can find a consensus on this article, but it definitely needs work. Its current condition, to me, is not good for Wikipedia. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Miguel Ruíz

There is a lot of information about the history of Cafe Yaucono in Miguel Ruíz, which should likely be transfered here. Deadstar (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)