Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaka Fattah Jr.


 * 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)

Chaka Fattah Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)


 * Redirect I am amending this delete to a redirect to Chaka Fattah. It appears per WP:GNG that he does warrant a redirect per Forbes coverage which I recommend be protected. I've added all relevant information regarding this person to his father's page. Valoem   talk   contrib  01:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Even after you added those citations, the article still shows tons of WP:BIAS and WP:COI I'll give you a chance to correct it. I assume when you say "I do not believe I have violated WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or 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)


 * Yes, you are correct. Let me know if you want me to attempt to correct the WP:BIAS and 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)


 * Why are you interested in this person and what other articles have you contributed to? Valoem   talk   contrib  18:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 WP:UNDUE. Because he is more notable of those things than suing the IRS, they should be the main focus of this article. However, this would not even make news if his father who actually is notable, was not a politician. Since 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Delete. Reliable news sources can be used to bolster an existing article, but we need solid independent sources for a topic to be notable.  No evidence is presented of anything of the sort.  Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This person is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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


 * Comment I've amended this delete to a redirect to Chaka Fattah per sources. The sources mentioned by the IP editor are news and Wikipedia is not news. I've updated all relevant information. Valoem   talk   contrib  01:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Delete as a non notable person. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  15:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Upon further review, due a possible guilt by association on Chaka Fattah Sr. who is as far as I can tell uninvolved, there is no reason to mention the investigation, therefore no reason to redirect. I am maintaining the original delete and salt stance. Valoem   talk   contrib  23:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say it's borderline, but given our efforts to be cautious in regards to BLPs I think it would be best to delete this subject at this point. There is not substantial coverage in reliable independent sources except for one event that is controversial. Delete. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete under BLP All the material is negative, tho sourced, all of it concerns allegations & investigations, not convictions, all of it is relatively minor. I suspect the Phila newspapers covered it because of his father; I don't think we do that.  DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. All possible notability is derived from an on-going investigation and counter-suit. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I am concerned about an almost entirely negative BLP. I agree with DDG that as of now it is relatively minor.  The current situation is perhaps best explained in this Politico article.  As this unfolds, it may in the future belong in Wikipedia, but not now. I am One of Many (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.