Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ducas (investor)


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

John Ducas (investor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Checkuser note: Please see the results of the sockpuppetry investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Floridainvestor87. Some of the accounts identified in the SPI have not commented here; however, the result may be helpful for the administrator closing this discussion.  Risker (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No significance or real notability. Business Insider's Most Powerful 20 under 20 in Finance is not creditworthy as shown here. A teen who only made simulated trades, and no real trades was also listed on the list. Furthermore there are several other businessowners and investors in the world, what makes this person notable? Aussie78 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, Mo Islam was a phony. ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid at AfD.) John Ducas has been in the public eye for years, and nobody has claimed he is a phony. In fact, Yahoo Finance interviewed Ducas about the Mo Islam scam.. But OK, so let's say Business Insider can be fooled; so discount the Business Insider coverage. That still leaves significant coverage from several other respected references cited at the Ducas article: Forbes (twice) and CNBC, in addition to Yahoo Finance. That should be enough to pass GNG in anybody's book. To answer your question about "what makes a person notable?", the answer is WP:GNG - significant coverage by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

* Keep Per MelanieN. There are a number of independent and well respected sources within the finance field that have either interviewed or featured the individual in question. Passes WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY as well, given that he has enough credibility to be interviewed on the sham teenage trader by Yahoo! Finance. I eat BC Fish (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Changing my vote. Did some more digging and the number of sources mentioning him does seem weak. Additionally, he's quoted as having 120 clients, but there seems to be no third party evidence corroborating it. I eat BC Fish (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The reason I have this article on my watchlist is that it has come under repeated attack from IPs and Special Purpose Accounts. The IPs vandalize the article; the SPAs try to get it deleted. I'm not talking about you, Aussie78; you are not an SPA and you started this AfD in good faith. However, the two SPA comments above are strikingly similar to the comments by an earlier SPA who tried to speedy-delete and/or gut the article. I am pointing out this history to assist in interpreting these and any future SPA comments. --çç (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have filed a sockpuppet investigation to help clarify the situation. --MelanieN (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you MelanieN. It looks as though FraudBustersTeam, Throwaway1998 and TheDiscrediter only have edits concerned with John Ducas. Aussie78 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: Relisted due to a significant share of SPAs in the discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Delete" John Ducas has not been in the public eye for years. He has achieved these interviews through personal finances and pestering reporters for interviews as I and many other witnesses will be glad to confirm. The articles he has been mentioned in furthermore give no credibility to any of his claims, no financial statements, no primary or reliable sources for that matter. A wikipedia page cannot be based on the input of one person especially if it is himself as there is no limit to how much John Ducas is willing to make up to get what he wants. As the PDF has shown, there are a wide range of irregularities and false statements in this article, there is no legitimacy to any of the claims that he is making. His company Ducas Capital Management claims to have over 150 paying clients yet he provides no financial information of his revenues. His Youtube account The Young Informer claims to have 27,000 LEGITIMATE subscribers and over 100,000 channel views, yet these subscribers have been paid for and numerous are cloned accounts. His free online course "Beginner Guide to the Stock Market" with 8252 students enrolled and 26 reviews, of which the vast majority of the reviews are 5 star, now it is very unlikely that a course with such a high enrollment has less then 0.5% of its students leave a review, even more unlikely that those leave very positive reviews. John Ducas is not an investor, nor is he an ethical individual worthy of having a wikipedia article about himself especially since it was most likely written by him. As wikipedia is an institution with a mission to provide the latest and reliable information to the globe, I highly advise that this wikipedia page be taken down. --TheDiscrediter (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC) — TheDiscrediter (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Note:Comment moved from middle of the discussion to appropriate chronological location. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC))

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -, , and - all in-depth coverage that is already located in the article. Even if the main 20 investors under 20 source from Business Insider is dodgy for whatever reason,  is still giving him coverage as well. Even if he is a hoaxer, that does not immediately make him non-notable; in fact, if reliable sources expose the hoax, that makes him more notable. The two hundred and fifty-five million socks in here voting to delete also reinforces the notability. This AfD was created in good faith, but I cannot see how it was ever viable when looking at the article as it stood prior to the nomination; Ducas clearly met GNG just from what was in the article. The article should be semi-protected for a fair while due to the multitude of socks.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Lukeno94: received coverage even though being discovered as a hoaxer. --PanchoS (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious that they actually have been found to be a hoaxer; at least, they haven't by anyone credible. The only thing that says he is is the website that is behind this sock-and-meat-farm; no reliable source appears to have picked it up, or even any other unreliable source. As such, those socks are technically violating BLP. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 15:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly! No reliable source has questioned his credentials or called him a hoaxer. Those claims are coming from an anonymous attack website and from people's personal opinions about the his credibility. I too have worried about the BLP aspects of this discussion, and I have wondered if some of the comments, particularly the links to the attack website, should be revdel'ed - maybe after this discussion is closed. Note that FraudBustersTeam linked to it twice, in two separate comments. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The comments I was concerned about, including the links to the attack site, have been deleted by FraudBustersTeam (after a change of username to Treestop999). --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. WP:BLP needs to protect the article's subject against questionable libels. For the outcome of this discussion this should be irrelevant. If he has been covered by relevant and reliable sources, then he is notable. Everything else is WP:OR. --PanchoS (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The AfD was not created because I believed he was a hoax. I questioned his notability - may have been wrong. Ducas seems to be apart of a group of 30 or so teens doing the same thing i.e. trading the markets. A number of the members of the club seem to have a lot of media coverage as well. Does that make them notable? (Genuine question - not a rhetorical one) Aussie78 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't questioning why you'd created the AfD; the hoax-related parts of my comment were aimed at the sock-and-meat farm here. If the other members of his team have a decent amount of coverage in reliable sources, then yes, they are indeed notable. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The flaw in your argument is that just because the sources are from respectable news sites, this makes the information provided reliable and thus irrefutable. However all the information provided by the wiki has been proven wrong point by point and if you go back to those news articles it is all hearsay, information provided by John Ducas and nothing to back it up. Now Wikipedia is based on providing the latest and reliable information, and to allow a wiki page based entirely on false information, would affect Wikipedia's reliability of information. Of course, if there is any information to prove this John Ducas is a legitimate investor with over a hundred clients and a successful business, then I and a lot of other people would be interested in hearing about it.TheDiscrediter (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no flaw in my argument whatsoever. Your organization has absolutely no credit as a reliable source for anything, and thus cannot remotely be considered as a reliable source. Go and read Wikipedia policies before spouting any more rubbish, please. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion is dragging on for too long. 22:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Termination2What (talk • contribs)
 * 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.