Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Condé

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Condé (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)

The son of the President does not generate

I would like to make the point that that Mohammed Condé does deserve a page. Despite not holding an official position within the government, he is still documented to have worked for the government.[1][2] Furthermore, he is the son of the President of Guinea.[3] He has been documented not only as an adviser and translator for the President[4], but also as a dealmaker behind the scenes of various suspicious business deals.[5][6][7][8][9][10] This indicates that he is someone that people – especially the people of Guinea – want to know more about. I look forward to discussing this further. OscarK878 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no assertations of notability other than being the President's son, but as per
  WP: NOTINHERETED, that's not a valid claim of notability. Electric Catfish 15:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I do agree with Electriccatfish 2. Part of the problem here is that Oscar seems to solely rely on a google translation of articles from the french.contrary to your assertions, The individual does have an official position according to the decree of april 16 that's referenced in your source.That alone gives me pause. It should be noted that the sunday times article that seems to have sparked your interest [11] nowhere mentions this individual. CollinsGen12 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC) CollinsGen12 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link [12] to a notice posted from one of the sites used as sources on the article. He proclaims in french "Nous avons clairement affiché notre appartenance à l’opposition et nous ne transigerons pour rien au monde." Translation : we have clearly shown our membership in the opposition and nothing will compromise that stance. CollinsGen12 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete I had already added a speedy deletion that the user decided to remove without accordance to WP guidelines. The article is not relevant. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 16:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sourcing is not what is being contested in this discussion. I concede to the fact that better sourcing may be required if the page were to live on, and it is not my intention to use politically motivated sourcing at all. This discussion is to decide whether this person is worthy of having a page on Wikipedia or not. I have laid out the primary reasons why I think he does deserve a page:

• He is a Member of the Ministry of Economy, Finance and Planning of Guinea.[13]
• He manages the agenda and movements of the President.[14] As well as acting as an advisor and translator in governmental interactions between Guinea and South Africa.[15][16][17]
• He has been documented in reliable South African, Guinean and Russian media outlets for his involvement in deals relating to mining concessions in Guinea. Both legitimate and disputed. In these cases he acted as a signatory on behalf of the Guinean Government.[18][19][20][21]
• He was a signatory on one particular deal that has sparked the World Bank to open an investigation into Guinea’s mining sector.[22]
• He has acted as a signatory on behalf of the country of Guinea in at least one commercial deal.[23]

I have outlined the above in order to clearly identify this person's notability in his own right and not inherited. It is also worth mentioning that it was not me that removed the original ‘speedy deletion’ notice. Thanks OscarK878 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did of course note that the primary author of the article should not be removing CSD notices from it, right? dangerouspanda 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent CSD notice was removed (declined) by Mr Stradivarius in this edit. Mr Stradivarius has not otherwise edited the article at all. The previous one was also removed by an editor who has not otherwise edited the article. --

talk) 19:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still agree that there are no assertations of notability other than being the President's son

@ Oscar This a BLP first and foremost, the quality of the sources is in fact a central issue along with getting it right. I have tried to follow through your "evidence" and i'm not convinced i must say (see below). This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid.

• Reason 1: the link provided is dead.the assertion is false, the decree in your article saying otherwise. Additionally in guinea, the ministry of planning is separate from the ministry of economy and finance [24]
• Reason 2 is not in dispute and does not establish notability in my view. Take out the fact he's the son of a president, it's not notable.
• Reason 3,5: these are the same allegations/sources that were posted in your original article recycled through various languages, they all seem to refer back to this sunday times article [25]. A bit of digging shows that the alleged contract can be downloaded at [26] it shows 2 ministers as signatories as does the original sunday times article
• Reason 4: cite the sunday times referencing the original article signed by 2 ministers. rendering this false.

11:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)~

Thank you for your feedback Collins. I have now corrected the link to Reason 1. It clearly states (original in French) "Ministry of Economy, Finance and Planning" on pages 4 and 21. I concede using the term signatory was ambiguous in my statements above - the sentence in the published article is also misleading. Thank you for the research. English is my second language, after French, please forgive me. I have always, and continue to, welcome input on any of my contributions. The point I was trying to make is that his involvement in several deals involving the Guinean government has been widely reported on and is globally newsworthy. It may not weigh into the official Wikipedia guidelines: but his Wikipedia profile was viewed around 25 times on average every day since its creation (discounting the large number of hits it has received more recently since we begun this discussion). To me this indicates that this person is notable and the people of the world are interested in him. I agree the content of his page should be drafted very carefully and from reliable sources. Others seem to be incapable of looking beyond the fact that he is President's son. A fact which I am NOT hinging any of my statements of notability on. This discussion alone has illustrated that there is notable information out there. OscarK878 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Oscar, 1. "This discussion alone has illustrated that there is notable information out there" ==> EXISTENCE IS NO PROOF OF NOTABILITY. 2. Pageview stats are a common notability fallacy.T Additionally, the notability of an event ( "deals") does not imply the notability of people who may partake in it as your thesis seems to imply here. Stretching your argument, this character appears nowhere on the only things that seem verifiable in these articles : the signed contracts.I couldn't find a single credible instance of an interview, profile of this individual in any language on any source (reputable or not). Let's face it: the ONLY REASON this is here is BECAUSE he is the son a president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinsGen12 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that no other profile or interview exists for this person spurs me on to build this page as a collection of the information that is publically available about him and does exist. Clearly you and I directly disagree about whether this person is “notable enough” (or not) to have a page on Wikipedia. Rather than us making the same points over and over (and you mentioning that he is the president’s son, again) let’s get input from the more experienced neutral Wikipedia editors and get this discussion resolved. Thank you for your time OscarK878 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially merge into
  WP:POLITICIAN. For the former, there is very little in the way of significance on his part, as his work is largely limited to assisting communication between his father and South African President Jacob Zuma. As for the latter, although he holds an important position assisting the highest office of his country, he is not a prolific public figure, and his nation is not a major player on the international circuit (someone with a similar role in the U.S. or Iran might meet the criteria, but not in Guinea). I also suggest redirecting the page after the content has been merged (assuming of course that is the consensus). Kurtis (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]