Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis N. Ofori


 * 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. While most of the "delete" !votes are solidly policy-based, the same cannot be said of the "keep" !votes. In addition, the crimes are, at this point in time, only alleged but not proven, which fact means that policy requires that these allegations are not mentioned, neither in a BLP, nor in another article. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Curtis N. Ofori

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:BLP1E, as the only significant coverage of the subject appears to be the rape allegations against him and, relatedly, his apparent attempts to bury them. A mention of him might be appropriate at The Hook, but beyond that it's not our role to actualize the Streisand effect here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per norm. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Hook. Tangential mention of him here in the Washington Post,, appears he may have bought the Hook archives and taken them offline. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Point of information: is there an article on the newspaper? The Hook is about an urban legend. Arlo James Barnes 14:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Arlo Barnes it's at The Hook (newspaper). Skynxnex (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed link in my nom. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if he's notable for The Hook(newspaper), he should be in a subsection of that article. RedKaladin (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I added some additional material and references and would be grateful for further review. Nangaf (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: article subject meets WP criteria for notability, both for his professional achievements and for the allegations, with multiple independent citations. Plorpy (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * notability only means they could have an article, not that we should give them a stand-alone page. 's nomination's mention of BLP1E gives good guidance on how to best deal with subjects like this article's. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 16:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. Remove the allegations (which is what should happen per WP:BLPCRIME), and there's nothing left showing notability. Minus the allegations that should not be included, the article's subject fails WP:GNG; they are known only for those allegations, and per Biographies of living persons there should not be a Wikipedia article on a living person known only for unsubstantiated criminal allegations for which there is no conviction. - Aoidh (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:BLPCRIME guidance applies and seems unambiguous. Nangaf (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Curtis N. Ofori
 * Keep. Subject is notable on at least eight different grounds.
 * 1. He is a wealthy securities trader, who has done extensive government business;
 * 2. In 2017, the federal government debarred him from doing business with it, based on his misconduct in 2013 (“due to irregularities in a 2014 bid by their company Twin Assets LLC for HUD asset management services”);
 * 3. In 2018, the federal government debarred him from doing business with it, based on his misconduct in a separate matter in 2014 (“for knowingly submitting false statements to HUD's Mortgagee Review Board in 2013”);
 * 4. Subject “is also a defendant in an ongoing legal suit, filed in 2018, alleging fraudulent real estate valuation”;
 * 5. Subject was accused by a UVA classmate of committing forcible rape against her;
 * 6. A second woman also accused the subject of raping her;
 * 7. He has apparently bought the archives of a defunct alternative newspaper, The Hook, which published a long article about one of his UVA accusers’ accusations and lawsuit, and has sought to disappear all online traces of the charges; and
 * 8. He is apparently seeking to have the WP pages both on himself, and that of the newspaper he has apparently bought and whose archives he seeks to destroy, deleted. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:E1B5:4CEE:714E:F285 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.14.11.243 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of those is a rationale for notability according to any notability guideline, and 4-6 are specifically things that shouldn't be given that much attention per WP:BLPCRIME. - Aoidh (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What you said is completely untrue. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:5C56:214A:6867:E9F0 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's untrue then show it, don't just claim it. What notability guideline do any of those points meet then? The article certainly does't meet WP:NBUSINESSPERSON so there goes points 1, 2, and 3. WP:BLPCRIME means points 4, 5, 6 are very far from showing notability in that they shouldn't even be factors in the article at all. 7 is WP:BLP1E if that, and 8 is speculation and even if true, there is no notability guideline that says a subject is notable just because they do not wish to have a Wikipedia article. If it's untrue, please show your work and explain how it's untrue. - Aoidh (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * [] is irrelevant to 2, 3, and 4, since they do not relate to criminal matters. You can't just make up stuff as disqualifying. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:5C56:214A:6867:E9F0 (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Never said it applies to points 2 and 3, but neither of those points show notability either. Fraud is a crime, so while WP:BLPCRIME applies, it ultimately doesn't matter because even if it didn't, that point doesn't show notability through any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines either. If the subject is notable, which notability guideline does he meet? None of the eight points you raised above show notability through any of Wikipedia's criteria. - Aoidh (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLPCRIME, this guy would probally be a random without the crime. It is what the policy matters Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep and rename - this set of incidents has received significant coverage in papers of record - WaPo and The Times - so undeniably pass the notability threshold, but the subject is not so much Mr Ofori himself so suggest remaning it to title focused on the takedown. 09:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.82.168 (talk) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple of sources about a single event is a situation specifically covered in WP:BLP1E. Rather than "undeniably" meeting WP:GNG, the exact opposite is true; this is a blip of coverage that was in the news briefly for an otherwise non-notable subject. The article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines.- Aoidh (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting as this is an expanded article from the brief one that was originally nominated for deletion. I hope any editors participating after this relist evaluates the current state of the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. The Hook includes relevant content. Hekerui (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep IMO the subject is notable given the multiple sources of press coverage. Nangaf (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * PAG seems very clear that if his only notability is from the rape allegations/burying attempt, he should not have an article. What I'd need to see in an expansion of the article is GNG-establishing references that pertain to his role as a businessman. None of the keep !voters have provided that here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to comment on the improvements to the article, it's still very much a WP:BLP1E situation at best with very problematic rape allegations that absolutely do not belong in the article per WP:BLPCRIME. Remove the crime allegations and the coverage for the single paper event and there's nothing of substance to the article and certainly nothing that shows notability. - Aoidh (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Following the newspaper coverage, I would say he passes BLP1E#2, and also that BLPCRIME does not apply. The article now, if somewhat short, is not the stub it was at the time of nomination, as mentioned above. Given the news about The Hook, I think he's notable, if only just barely. He is the main personal subject of the WaPo article, as the rape allegation and burying are both related to him—he is the cause of both. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "passes" BLP1E's second point, but being a high-profile individual (if that's what you're alleging) is something that is demonstrated via reliable sources and is elaborated on in WP:LOWPROFILE; outside of WP:BLPCRIME (which does very much apply here given that there are allegations of crimes for which there are no convictions) there are no sources showing such notability. WP:BLPCRIME is policy about living people; it cannot be dismissed out of hand without an explanation as to how you feel the BLP policy doesn't apply to a BLP article. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME the subject should not have an article, you can't just hand-wave WP:BLPCRIME aside and vaguely assert that BLP1E is "met"; that is something sources determine and sources do not support such claims. The WaPo article about the paper and its circumstances fall squarely within WP:BLP1E; there is no notability outside of that one thing. - Aoidh (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Aoidh: The subject is not the crime, but the response; so the interest-balancing motivating BLPCRIME is not present. The actual crime (or allegation thereof) is not the notable event of this subject's life. Similarly, BLP1E#2 is not met because of the coverage relating to the deletion of The Hook. I merely stated my opinion as to the policies mentioned above; you need not attack me for not fleshing out an argument before your response. You also misread BLPCRIME as a general matter—it deals with insinuations, not the material itself. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME very much applies to about half of the content currently in the article, particularly Curtis N. Ofori. As far as The subject is not the crime, but the response the response is the allegations in various forms and falls squarely into WP:BLPCRIME's remit; being "accused of having committed, a crime" is exactly what that part of the policy covers and is exactly what is in the article. The actual crime (or allegation thereof) is not the notable event of this subject's life then it should not be present in the article. BLP1E#2 is not met because of the coverage relating to the deletion of The Hook that is a single event for an otherwise non-notable individual; WP:BLP1E very much applies there to the point that situations like this are precisely why 1E exists. If the only notability is, as you say, in relation to this one event, then the article's subject doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia, per the BLP policy, which very much applies to this BLP article. - Aoidh (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E applies here but even if an argument is made that it doesn't apply here, WP:CRIME is also pretty clear that someone shouldn't have an article in this situation Tristario (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is just as notable as Ngozi Fulani and Sistah Space, and number of commenters were insistent those were each too notable to be combined into a single Royal Racism Incident page. 87.196.72.150 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Tristario (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to get pinging at this AFD discussion and won't comment, as I cannot decide to what extent WP:CANVASS and WP:SPA apply here. CT55555 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Note that WP:DEL-REASON says that a breach of WP:BLP is a reason to delete an article - demonstrating notability doesn't mean that WP:BLP isn't breached. Either way the only significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources I can find relates to the rape allegations so this seems like a pretty clear case of WP:CRIME indicating that he shouldn't have his own article. Even if you argue that he has notability outside of the allegations, taking away the crime stuff which can't be included per WP:BLPCRIME, then he still fails WP:GNG --Tristario (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That was very naughty what you did, Tristario!
 * Tristario removed all of the material in the article unrelated to the rape allegations and the suppression of The Hook, so that he can then say, "Look, beyond the rape allegations, and attempt to suppress them, there's nothing notable about Ofori." The material he deleted included the two federal actions against Ofori, and the pending lawsuit against him. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:6D41:A61:65A:B2BB (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed that because WP:BLPPRIMARY explicitly says you're not supposed to use public documents as sources in biographies of living persons, and WP:BLP explicitly says you're supposed to immediately remove any poorly sourced contentious content. So I was explicitly compelled by wikipedia policy to do that. I linked to the policy in my edit summary, which you could have read Tristario (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this deletion discussion, it might be useful for other editors to be aware of this material, regardless of your judgement that it should be removed; and for that reason, I would like to draw attention to the previous versions of the article, which include Mr Ofori's other legal entanglements. Nangaf (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to do that. I'll note, though, that per WP:GNG that doesn't count towards notabilty as those aren't reliable secondary sources Tristario (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have restored some material. I rewrote the section to focus on Mr Ofori's career rather than legal issues, added some more references, and deleted two lawsuits for which only primary sources were available. Nangaf (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of that is still just sourced to public documents, the parts about being debarred from government contracts Tristario (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that extra content is pretty irrelevant to this deletion discussion because none of it comprises significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which is what notability requires Tristario (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, well let's see if we can reach consensus. I note that the catch-and-kill story is present on the current version of The Hook. Nangaf (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep -- but very marginal, given that there is scant secondary coverage other than the rape allegations and suspected catch-and-kill that are already covered at The Hook. Nangaf (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Refactored to strike duplicate !vote. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;   talk 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nangaf, you have already !voted above. Please do not !vote twice; I have refactored your comment to strike the bolded text. (Also, if you and others !voting keep want the closer to give your !votes any weight whatsoever, you need to articulate what coverage unrelated to the allegations/catch-and-kill you are referring to.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's all there on the article page: I assume that the closer will be able to read. Nangaf (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete largely per Tristario, sourcing for articles like this (which have inherent NPOV issues) need to be top-drawer, and in my opinion these aren't top-drawer. Too many primary sources and too much original research, this is exactly the sort of article the spirit of BLP is intended to prevent. Daniel (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For my education, and the benefit of those reading, can you point out what in the article is original research? Nangaf (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Where you use a primary source to attribute to a statement, that is original research, as you are trying to do the job of a secondary source in analysing a primary source. The following are primary sources: 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 and maybe also 1. Daniel (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2023 (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.