Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Achom (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Kurykh (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Achom

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Frederick Achom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At Talk:Frederick Achom#Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017, a new editor claiming to be representing the subject has relayed his request that the article be deleted because it contains "negative information". Normally when the notability is marginal and the subject requests deletion, AfDs result in delete. The question for this AfD is whether the notability is more than marginal. He was listed as one of the top 100 most important business people of African or Caribbean heritage in the UK Powerlist (referenced to the Guardian [1]) and "London's 1000 most influential people" (referenced to the Evening Standard [2]) both of which are short and vague descriptions of his activities. The remainder of the "positive coverage" is simply press releases and PR puff pieces, not published in mainstream media. However, his most detailed coverage in the UK mainstream is "negative". It relates to his conviction and prison term for a wine investment fraud in 2000 and a 2016 conviction for running a company while barred from doing so after a further fraud in 2002 (covered in the Financial Times [3], Evening Standard [4], and The Spectator [5] as well as the specialty wine press. Note that the WP article was created as a puff-piece and has since been subject to editing by multiple paid editors and socks of same attempting to restore the positive-only version. At least two have acknowledged payment for editing the article. For more background on what went on there see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 105#Frederick Achom. On balance, I consider the notability marginal. The only significant coverage of him has been a few articles about the wine fraud episode in 2000/2002 and a further charge stemming from the episode in 2016. The rest is puff-pieces or outright PR and very brief mentions on "The 100 list". I see no evidence of a lasting impact made by his activities or businesses. Given the subject's desire to be removed, I would support deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep -- the subject is more than marginal and solicits funds worldwide, it is in this light that the page is (now) an excellent resource to anyone approached by Achom looking for some balance prior to entering a commercial relationship. Multiple awards and repeated coverage in clearly reliable press (FT, Forbes) whether in a negative/positive light, make this one to keep. The request to delete the article seems to me to be a final solution now that the article has gone from a glowing advertorial on the subject (see original verisons) to balanced. This is exactly what wikipedia is about people. Please keep. AMStephanyUK (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the notability is indeed more than marginal, something apparent in the fact of multiple awards and repeated coverage in obviously reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Noting that the notability is very marginal indeed, and that per WP:BLP and the fact that the person desires deletion, ties go in favour of deletion. Being listed as one of the 100 most powerful businessmen of African or Caribbean origin in the UK Powerlist is not, IMO, a "notable award" at all. Nor is being in the list of 1000 most powerful Londoners a "notable award." That list includes Bip Ling, Simon Hammerstein, Matt Hermer, Nick Jones, Piers Adam, Nick House, Charlie Gilkes, Duncan Stirling and a host of other "luminaries". It is not a "notable award" by any stretch of the imagination. A majority, as far as I can tell, of the "news sources" are actually simple "press releases" and, as such, far down the totem pole of Wikipedia. SPS press releases do not establish notability. Lists of thousands of non-notable people are not "notable awards" at all. And the "repeated coverage" is non-existent. For example the New York Times cite has ZERO mention of Achom. Yet is one of the "reliable sources" averred to exist. It is about "The Scotch" and not about Achom, does not mention Achom, does not imply that Achom is notable, and is a clear case of adding purely tangential "sources" to a BLP devoid of actual sources. [6] is a press release. [7] is a press release. In fact, almost every source for his business is - a press release, or barely rewritten press release. Delete it. Collect (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am thinking that Achom could be notable enough for an article because of his high-society visibility coupled with his multiple convictions and run-ins with the law - not so much for his "business successes". Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Marginal notability. Leaving aside his criminal activities, his companies/clubs were the main focus of most of the popular press. There are some 'Black X etc etc' list entries but nothing really high profile (or even medium profile). Regarding his wine fraud - he had the bad luck to be caught at a time when a crackdown on wine fraud was in place. A few years earlier or later and he would have been lucky to hit the press at all. Given the subject also requests deletion, I am going with 'marginal notability & subject request'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per delete votes. I'm always against the negative effects of Wikipedia. Darreg (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really have much to do with guidelines about whether an article should be deleted... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you read where I said "per delete votes"? Darreg (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (noting later merge !vote) . As before, in my opinion Mr. Achom's notability doesn't rest so much upon his asserted successes but upon his various legal problems he's had over the years coupled with his visibility in the UK media. On a smaller scale it could be said to be reminiscent of Bernie Madoff's notability - Madoff's notability does not rest so much upon his asserted successes but upon his high-society lifestyle coupled with his notorious legal issues and his subsequent convictions. Shearonink (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should be aware that there was a recent removal of sources at the article. I've opened a discussion at the article's talkpage. Please weigh in there if you wish. Shearonink (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With regards to notability, I do not think this is at all a question. I've seen AfDs voted and closed 'keep' with just the occasional trivial mention in 2-3 respectable sources (something I dispute as being 'significant'). With regards to the subject's desire to be deleted, I'm not sure of the official stance of the organisation, however my personal view is if it is accurate and neutral with every single contentious issue backed up by reliable and trustworthy sources as per WP:RS, it should remain. This is really nothing more than a compendium of public domain information. I do not necessarily believe in the right of someone to influence what information the project presents based on personal preference, even if it is about them. I only support this when the info is not accurate or not sourced. Rayman60 (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be a case of Wikipedia:Attack page. Secondly some of the editors that worked on the page are already blocked for "edit warring" and "Conflict of Interest". The artcle creator is also blocked. There's also evidence of undisclosed paid editing as seen in the nominator's post. Marginal notability is also a factor here. Most of the references border on the negative aspects of the subject. Finally, the subject Mr. Achom as said earlier also wants the page deleted whereas millions of others both notable and non-notable want to be on Wikipedia. So, let the page be taken down.Laosilika (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I was asked by Frederick Achom to make a request for deleting this page. He is requesting that because of the negative information posted in the page. He also assured me that the person that created the page has been blocked because it was discovered he was paid to do so.
Ok. So. 1)Request has apparently been made by the subject himself but is there an OTRS ticket saying such? Does WP have any kind of confirmation that this editor actually speaks for Achom? 2)Does it matter for the purposes of this discussion if the subject has made such a request? Well now...it shouldn't. I am certain that there are many WP:BLP subjects who would like negative (but sourced) information deleted from their articles. Does WP acquiesce to their requests? No. So. The Wiki-question now under consideration on this page is: notability and that alone. After innumerable COI editors - paid and not - have had their editorial mitts on the article deleting the negative information, recrafting the article into a puff piece again and again, now the subject apparently just wants the whole thing to go away. So, let's take a look at the various Notability guidelines that might be in play in this situation.
There's WP:PERPETRATOR (which in this case would be about Achom's run-ins with the law) which states in part: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. So, if the victim can be thought of as being notable enough, then the obverse should also be true - that the perpetrator of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.
So, for the purposes of this discussion let's say that a national celebrity who commits a crime can be the subject of an article. Is Achom a national celebrity in the UK? I would think so. But is he notable enough for a standalone article? I think Achom is notable enough of a subject for an article but looks like quite a few people think not. I think that there is an alternative to deletion (of the entire content of this article) that has not been mentioned yet. It would seem to be a good fit for Merging into Investment wine.
I would like to mention that some editors in this discussion are mentioning that this article is a WP:ATTACK which is defined as "a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to speedy deletion." Well, if this article is only a poorly-sourced or unsourced attack page, then why wasn't it subjected to speedy deletion? Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 1000 most influential people in London at any given time are not all default notable. We should err on the side of privacy with living individuals unless there is a strong case to keep the article, and there is no strong case to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Shearonink, that there is no way this could be characterised as an WP:ATTACK page and deleted on that basis. In fact, if anything it covers his non-criminal activities and alleged achievements in inordinate depth given their triviality and their references to press releases and obvious PR plants. It certainly was not created as an attack. It was a paid-for article verging on the advertorial created in 2013 and thanks to the ministrations of multiple paid editors and socks became even more so over the next 10 months, until an IP added the information about the fraud (quickly reverted). It wasn't until 2015 that a series of IPs re-added the material about the fraud convictions with references, and then yet more paid editors kept trying to have the material removed until the page was finally protected from non-autoconfirmed editing. A few paid editors who were autoconfirmed kept trying to remove the fraud convictions, but to no avail (and rightly so, the fraud assertions are referenced to highly reliable sources). This is what I am sure has led to the current request for deletion. Where I do disagree with Shearonink is on Achom's status as a "national celebrity" irrespective of his convictions for fraud. A few puff pieces, obvious PR plants, and his inclusion on the "PowerList" do not confer national celebrity. The kind of coverage he has received in that respect is non-existent in the mainstream national press. Note that much of the stuff that Achom has put about in the press is vastly exaggerated. His "ownership" of the The Scotch nightclub is a case in point. He was not the owner at all, simply an investor and a rather minor one. See this. Incidentally, shortly after he invested in the club this edit was made to the Scotch article by an obvious paid editor. Voceditenore (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think the best outcome for this article would be to merge the content about Achom's wine businesses & convictions into Investment wine. *(Not sure if this should be counted as a change or not from my above comments since my previous post about this was to Keep.) Shearonink (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the subject maintains his own 'puff' site [8] which features no mention of his past criminal cases, the article justifies its existence by providing a crowd-edited, credibly-sourced perspective. As someone up-thread noted, the negative material in the article is more than outweighed by the positive. 110.148.115.116 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable for brushes with the law. Separately, this will perhaps be a lesson to marginally notable businesspeople to not pay to have articles on them created. (I note that the article was created by Special:Contributions/Reuvengrish who has been blocked for sockpuppetry). K.e.coffman (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. The subject of the article runs their own site that portrays them in a very positive light, ignoring anything remotely negative. If they really did want to disappear from public and business life, then agreeing to their request to remove the article from Wikipedia would have more substance. Our readers might reasonably expect Wikipedia to have a page about them, so we should keep our more nuanced NPOV biography. Edwardx (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced with public domain information, this page provides a public resource as per AMStephanyUK's rationale. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the following reasons:

1. Notability is clearly marginal (only tilting to negatives) and in line with WP:BLP.

2. The subject desires deletion in line with WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE

3. There have been several cases of undisclosed paid editing both for and against the subject.

4.The article creator is paid to create this and he or she has been blocked.

5. Some editors that worked on the page are already blocked as a result of undisclosed paid editing.

6.The current state of the article seems as if it's meant to defame the subject for whatever reasons!

7. The page has been a battleground. This is against the policy of wikipedia which says"Wikipedia is not a battleground"

I believe wikipedia is much more that this stuff. Let these points be considered before the final decision is taken pls. So, I agree with all others that voted delete here.Fatima 77 (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima, "this stuff" represents Wikipedia at its very best. Though the subject desired its creation, it has now overcome its spurious start by paid editing and has become a well referenced biography. It is not Wikipedia's fault that the individual has lived their lives in such a manner, we would opposed the deletion of political biographies on the grounds of "negativity" or "battleground" status. The subject now seeks its deletion, we should oppose any further opacitising of references. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I take GREAT exception to the allegation that the above editor has made that there have been "several cases of undisclosed paid editing both for and against the subject".[emphasis mine] It is a matter of record here on Wikipedia's pages that there have indeed been multiple instances of editors being paid to make edits favorable to the subject, I am unaware, however, of any editor being paid to edit against the subject. Seriously? This editor is making the allegation that some unknown entity has been paying editors to make edits against the subject? Who would pay for such editing?
And, by the way, there is no defamation if the statements under consideration are verifiable and true. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


More Insight I just stumbled upon this thread. I believe it throws more light to the questions raised by Shearonink and the issues on ground. Have a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Persistent_adding_of_unsourced_puffery_on_page_Frederick_Achom

Both editors involved have been blocked. One was in favor of Achom, the other was against. You can see accusations of paid editing both for and against the subject. Indeed, the page has been a battleground.Fatima 77 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a separate matter entirely - those particular editors were blocked for their bad behavior. Aliopuka was blocked for having multiple accounts/socking see here, NihartouJason was also blocked for being a sock. and these "accusations" you speak of that these two socking editors were flinging back&forth at each other are in and of themselves absolutely meaningless. If it was a matter worth investigating then a case should have been filed on the appropriate Admin-noticeboard. I actually remember NihartouJason, I interacted with him a few times, he was indeed a sock but he was also very open about the fact that he was paid by someone to make the Achom article into a puff-piece. I am unaware of any editor being paid to edit this article in a negative-POV way, if there was a case filed at some WP-noticeboard please do post it here.
Oh, and the fact that the article itself has been a "battleground"?... Wikipedia does not just delete content simply because the subject is a battleground. Shearonink (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frederick_Achom_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1078463387"