Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaka Fattah Jr.

Chaka Fattah Jr.

(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 WP:PROMO, WP:SELFPROMOTE, and WP:VANITY page. Despite the few sources which are obviously news, there is not a chance anyone would ever write an article on this person except himself or a close associate (WP:NOTNEWS). Zero accomplishments besides, from what I see as, an attempt to sue the IRS and claim harassment (very common occurrence). This article can be revisited if the outcome favors him, but until then this is absolutely trivial. All expansive edits were done by SPAs and IP editors, can't see anything significant about his company either. The biographical information links to personal dropboxs (citations [1], [2], and [4]), clearly 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]

But there is. The creating account is an SPA with no contributions besides this article. IP editors are on a shared IP in the tri-state area, but edits in clumps regarding this article. Prior IP editors have also extensively and solely edited this article such as this one 71.230.108.152, 68.81.70.199, and this one 72.44.134.178. Your IP has also edited this article in clumps and improperly removed tags. 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 (Cindy) pointed out the policy, I have not done so since. I agree with you that if an established editor chose to recreate this article without any promotion material, the article would be fine. Or, if the lawsuit favors Fattah. I believe SPA policy talks about assuming good faith. All I am asking for is to not improperly determine there was any bad faith by myself of any other editor in accordance with 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:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and 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:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or 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]

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]