Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Babikian


 * 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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

John Babikian

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

Insufficient sourcing to establish notability Cesarminus (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC) — Cesarminus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not seeing a strong argument for deletion under WP:GNG based on the verifiable material already in the article. Sources appear to meet WP:BASIC with WP:SUSTAINED in-depth significant coverage over a period of several years in RS; thus the nominator's rationale for deletion per WP:SIGCOV is just plain wrong. He appears to be known for illegally manipulating stocks, and participating in fraud. There is quite a lot of coverage of that criminal activity. On a side note, the divorce in 2013 doesn't appear in the sources currently in the article, so I think that sentence should be removed. That said, I could see an argument made in favor of deletion because the subject may fail WP:BLP1E or WP:CRIME. I have no strong opinion over whether this should be kept or deleted, given that there could be a case made under policy for both.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. I see a strong argument for deletion under WP:CRIME as based on the US government issued reference, the accused was not found guilty. There is also a valid argument made that subject fails WP:BLP1E 88.209.124.93 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — 88.209.124.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment

There's coverage of the pumpa and dump in business and local news but other than a Vice article it doens't look like the mainstream news outlets were particularly interested in this event. Plus, none of the sources listed above discuss the subject outside of the events. I suppose one could add them to the examples section of Pump and dump but they're not as novel as Stratton Oakmont or Cryptocurrency in my opinion. Just one of many low-level pump and dump schemes that go down on the daily.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 18:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — GDX420 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment In my search, I found this sources The ‘Wolf of Montreal’ Fugitive Was Building a $9-Million Mansion Based on Iron Man’s House that talks about him in detail and referred to him as ‘Wolf of Montreal’. According to the above analysis, even if the source meets all the criteria, it is still not enough to establish notability. Because multiple sources with above conditions are needed. If no new coverage in RS is found Delete, if founded please ping me. Alimovvarsu (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC) — Alimovvarsu (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC))
 * Note: User blocked for socking. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This article's been under constant, well-funded attack from accounts with very thin histories for years. I encourage the closer to examine the contributors here in that light, and make their own assessment of whether the claims that sources like this and this aren't significant coverage pass the sniff test. —Cryptic 23:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion early because it is dominated by editors with low edit counts. I have a feeling that there are some folks who want this article deleted because it is negative. I'd like some AFD regulars dive in and see if there are really insufficient sources to create a BLP article on this individual. If so, I'm fine with deleting it, I just want it to get a decent review from experienced editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Vice News has a thing about him and the Journal de Montreal . Some coverage, but I'm not showing enough to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Canadian Globe and Mail and WSJ speak about him (but then again there are many questionable penny stocks on Canadian exchanges Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete These kinds of people are a dime a dozen. Definitely associated with only a single event, and there is no other evidence of notability other than the one-off media frenzy, per WP:BLP1E. If it weren't for the really brief media frenzy, he would have been quickly deleted via CSD for not being notable at all. Ferrousmeteor8 (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC) — Ferrousmeteor8 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - Though, I make my vote cautiously. I strongly suspect the motive behind the nomination is the removal of negative content rather than a genuine desire to apply Wikipedia notability guidelines. Same with the comments from very new accounts including a sock. Now, let us say the subject of this article had not been caught up in legal troubles and he was merely a trader. The coverage on its face would probably not lend toward sufficient notability for an article. In this instance, given the issues faced, perhaps the name of the article is incorrect. Perhaps this should be coverage of the case and renamed "SEC v. Babikian" and the content orientated toward the case. There is a tenable argument the subject may not meet GNG. I am not seeing how the notability standard for crimes is met as there was no particularly unique motivation or execution per WP:CRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR, though I do note the multi-million dollar amount involved. The event or topic likely meets GNG - even if a biography of the individual would not. My submission is made with careful consideration to a number of factors: the motivation behind the nomination, the need to apply notability guidelines, and the need to protect the project from attempts to remove fair and truthful information about an individual that has been written in good faith, properly sourced, and is in the public interest. On balance, I consider the reasons to keep the article slightly outweigh any grounds for deletion, though happy to discuss my view with others. There is additional coverage in this book also. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As MaxnaCarta pointed out, it is likely that there is an ulterior motive behind the moves for deletion. Looking at the coverage, it is clear that the subject himself did become notable, namely for his use of the profits, and it was not just the crime or singular event which received enough coverage to become notable. For example, see this article in the National Post, this piece in Vice, or this article in the Toronto Sun. None of these sources are referenced in the article and there are many more of this kind. Chagropango (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2022 (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.