Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaka Fattah Jr.

Add links
Source: 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. Largely per BLP-related arguments j⚛e deckertalk 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaka Fattah Jr.

Chaka Fattah Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As one of the most left winged inclusionists, I almost never nominate anything for AfD except when I see a blatant violation article such as this one. This is a glaring misuse of Wikipedia and is a

conflict of interest. It is regrettable that this person was able to get away with this for nearly six years. In fact he has been freeriding Wikipedia to make himself more notable and has pushed sources of himself up to the front page of search engines. This is the very thing we are trying to prevent so Speedy/Strong Delete and Salt, obviously this person will try again. Valoem talk contrib 08:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

All references are news, except 7 and 8, which appear to be opinion pieces. If the dropbox referenced pdf files [1], [2] are a violation of wikipedia policy on conflict of interest, they should be changed to the web version of the same news articles. See links, http://www.blackenterprise.com/mag/the-personal-touch/ & http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2007/05/21/story13.html?page=all

It's not clear why Valoem believes this article was written by the article's subject. There is no way to determine if that is true, especially six years after creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.19 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the subject's IRS lawsuit was filed in March 2014, and references [6], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] are news articles that have been written in the past 45 days. I do not think it is clear based on this that wikipedia has been used to push sources of the subject's to the front page of search engines. Those references are from highly trafficked websites, such as philly.com, and phillymag.com, which organically appear high in search results. Philly.com is one of the most popular news sites in Philadelphia, and has a high number of unique visitors, one factor in search engine placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.19 (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the community should Keep and Expand the article, based on the thirteen news references. If a rewrite is necessary, a verifiable article can be written based on the sources. The news sources are independent and have editorial control.166.205.55.19 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there is. The creating account is an
WP:GNG is not the main reason for deleting this article. We should not write promotional articles about ourselves or a close associate. Because this article has an extreme conflict of interest it should be deleted. If an established editor choose to recreate this article with all the cruft removed I have no problems. If the outcome of the lawsuit favors Fattah we can look at it again as well. Valoem talk contrib 12:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Valeom, thank you for responding. Yes I have made some edits to this article, in the past week. I improperly removed one tag, and after an editor (
SPA policy. According to SPA, "Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits." Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, thank you for your time. Note:the below comments were added before your response showed on the page.166.205.55.22 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
No one has accused you of bad faith. Not sure where you got that idea. We are talking about
WP:COI, which is still an issue. I'd like to note that a lot of uncited information has been removed such as: In September 2007, he was named one of the Young Entrepreneurs of Rittenhouse Square by Rittenhouse magazine. I'm afraid that these could resurface given time. I've also noticed that the article did not have this citation Behind the facade, troubles rose for Fattah son which may be relevant in the interest of neutrality. Valoem talk contrib 15:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Valeom, I removed the uncited information in the interest of neutrality. Rittenhouse Magazine, and their website, are no longer in operation, so providing a link at this time is not possible. The other uncited information, such as the subject grew up in "West Philadelphia" in the "Overbrook section" may not be verified by a secondary source. The subject's age is cited in the Philadelphia Business Journal article "If you need a rolls". I will add the "Behind the facade" article. I would also note that yesterday I also added the citation [5] regarding Drexel, which is not necessarily a positive article as it appears to be about a lawsuit against the subject by a casino. I can only speak for my editing, and have no intention to repost the uncited information. Until (Cindy) made the edits on Mar 30, 2014, showing cites were needed, because I am not an experienced editor. I do not believe I have violated
WP:COI and would hope that an established editor chooses to rewrite this article.166.205.55.16 (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.16 (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Valeom, I added "Behind the facade" http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-04/news/31121573_1_gift-cards-loan-officers-school-firm , and two other articles, http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-29/news/31111091_1_agents-fbi-investigation & http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/01/fbi-investigating-pennsylvania-congressmans-son/ - in the interest of neutrality.166.205.55.28 (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even after you added those citations, the article still shows tons of
WP:COI and would hope that an established editor chooses to rewrite this article." it means you are saying you are a random editor who has no vested interest in the client and that you are definitely not Chaka Fattah Jr.. Am I correct? Valoem talk contrib 18:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, you are correct. Let me know if you want me to attempt to correct the
WP:COI. Since I do not have significant experience as an editor, please give specific examples or direction on what changes should definitely be included. I can make an attempt, and maybe you can assist me in making sure it conforms with all the guidelines.166.205.55.20 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.20 (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Why are you interested in this person and what other articles have you contributed to? Valoem talk contrib 18:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in the subject because I have an interest in issues such as government, education and small business. The subject is a business owner, family member of a U.S. Rep., and previously worked in alternative education in Pennsylvania. http://www.ydr.com/ci_19988604 The subject also has been in a years long dispute with the federal government according to media reports, prior to the recent lawsuit. I have contributed to a few other articles over the years. Articles about politicians in Philadelphia, councilmen/women, congresspeople and in some cases national celebrities if I see a blatant minor mistake. I have not contributed any entire articles. Most of my edits have been minor. 166.205.55.38 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.38 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay if you insist and since you are not Chaka Fattah Jr. there should be no offense. First look at
    WP:UNDUE
    and you will get an idea of all the issues. It is fairly obvious that the creator and almost every IP editor who expanded the article has a conflict of interest and may be the subject himself or a close associate. The entire article is wrong from the beginning and claims that Fattah Jr. is notable because of Suing the IRS and his so called "company". I have found nothing that this company even generates revenue and appears to be junk.
The article further claimed that he was a notable entrepreneur with no sources citing that. In truth everything about Fattah Jr. is merely accusations. He is accusing the IRS of "damages for lost income and damage to his reputation", but yet the article has no mention of accusations against him. He is accused of missed payments on a $50,000 loan, fraud, illicit campaign contributions, mismanagement of school funds, and least of all tax evasion (only one mentioned), none of which is in the article thus violating
notability is not inherited
this person is simply of no interest.
Essentially this article victimizes Fattah Jr. portraying him as a good citizen being bullied by the IRS which is far from what sources actually say. In reality, his company should be at the end of the article, his lawsuit should have less mention, and the rest, everything I mentioned above. So it appears that the main purpose of this article is to promote his clown investments and joke of a company. Then it attempts, with bias, to victimize him. Am I clear now? Valoem talk contrib 22:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Fattah has been using Wikipedia as his personal marketing tool which is why if deleted this article needs to be salted for good measure. It been a good run, but it ends now. Valoem talk contrib 22:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think what are you saying is mostly clear. However (Cindy), an established editor, made the change saying the subject is notable for "suing the IRS". Fattah Jr's company is mentioned in several of the news articles as is the value of the $450,000 contract, see philly.com "FBI Seizes" and "behind the facade". The subject has not been charged with any crime, whether tax evasion, illicit campaign contributions, fraud, mismanagement of school funds, or fraud. You appear to be talking about allegations, most of which are in one article "behind the facade". The article does not actually say he is accused of mismanagement of funds, its saying that someone wrote a check to his company which was allegedly misused. The article was written two years ago, and he has not been charged.166.205.55.30 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.30 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article about missed payments on a $50,000 loan. I will make sure that is in there. There are many articles that show his company had the above contract with a school company.166.205.55.30 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.30 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several references [1], [3], and [4] talking about his entrepreneurial activities. So I will make sure any rewrite has the citations in place.166.205.55.30 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.30 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The media coverage does appear to portray Fattah Jr. as a good citizen regarding the lawsuit, and the articles about his business, American Royalty. I don't actually see anything in the article about the subject's investments, so I am not sure what you are talking about. I will attempt a rewrite and then we'll see.166.205.55.30 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)166.205.55.30 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's recent coverage on 6abc WPVI-TV and 6abc.com make the subject notable, in addition to the independent sources such as Philly.com and The Philadelphia Business Journal.12.30.250.6 (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has many references, and has a tv interview of the subject, on 6 ABC, which is broadcast throughout the region. Regional news coverage about the subject is a strong indication of notability according to Wiki guidelines.50.243.42.187 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets the notability guidelines based on the citations.166.137.12.107 (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've amended this delete to a redirect to
    is not news. I've updated all relevant information. Valoem talk contrib 01:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Speedy keep Valeom's nomination of this article for the Afd process was in bad-faith. The Forbes article, article citation [8] which he reference in his comment above was cited as his reason for changing from speedy/strong delete and salt originally to today redirect was already on the article prior to his referring this to Afd. In addition, Valeom cites "is not news" is not on point. Wikipedia considers enduring notability. The subject article has citations from February/March 2012 and September 2012 and 10+ citations from March/April 2014. It is clear that for some reason Valeom is biased in this matter and began this discussion for disruption purposes. While some of the information in this article may belong at Chaka Fattah the subject article meets notability guidelines and Valeom should refrain from bad-faith Afd recommendations.166.137.12.107 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As shown above, the user who recommended this for articles for deletion has changed his request to delete this article. The subject meets notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.108.152 (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know this does not work on Wikipedia, AfD is not a vote all established editors have consented against this article, sockpuppet and votestacking is pointless, I have not withdraw my nomination, I've changed it to a redirect which definitely needs to be protected. Also I've reedited the article to be unbiased. I added a wrong citation on Fattah's page by mistake (copied the same link twice) thanks for pointing that out. I've corrected the link. Valoem talk contrib 02:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted as current delete !votes appear to ignore the existing independent sources (Fox News etc.), whereas the keep !votes are not convincing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chaka_Fattah_Jr.&oldid=1136113230"