Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Condé

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Condé[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The son of the President does not generate independent notability - unelected position is not notable as a mere functionary/advisor. dangerous panda 13:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make the point that that Mohammed Condé does deserve a page. Despite not holding an official position within the government, he is still documented to have worked for the government.[1][2] Furthermore, he is the son of the President of Guinea.[3] He has been documented not only as an adviser and translator for the President[4], but also as a dealmaker behind the scenes of various suspicious business deals.[5][6][7][8][9][10] This indicates that he is someone that people – especially the people of Guinea – want to know more about. I look forward to discussing this further. OscarK878 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no assertations of notability other than being the President's son, but as per WP: NOTINHERETED, that's not a valid claim of notability. Electric Catfish 15:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Electriccatfish 2. Part of the problem here is that Oscar seems to solely rely on a google translation of articles from the french.contrary to your assertions, The individual does have an official position according to the decree of april 16 that's referenced in your source.That alone gives me pause. It should be noted that the sunday times article that seems to have sparked your interest [11] nowhere mentions this individual. CollinsGen12 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC) CollinsGen12 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link [12] to a notice posted from one of the sites used as sources on the article. He proclaims in french "Nous avons clairement affiché notre appartenance à l’opposition et nous ne transigerons pour rien au monde." Translation : we have clearly shown our membership in the opposition and nothing will compromise that stance. CollinsGen12 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I had already added a speedy deletion that the user decided to remove without accordance to WP guidelines. The article is not relevant. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 16:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sourcing is not what is being contested in this discussion. I concede to the fact that better sourcing may be required if the page were to live on, and it is not my intention to use politically motivated sourcing at all. This discussion is to decide whether this person is worthy of having a page on Wikipedia or not. I have laid out the primary reasons why I think he does deserve a page:

He is a Member of the Ministry of Economy, Finance and Planning of Guinea.[13]
He manages the agenda and movements of the President.[14] As well as acting as an advisor and translator in governmental interactions between Guinea and South Africa.[15][16][17]
He has been documented in reliable South African, Guinean and Russian media outlets for his involvement in deals relating to mining concessions in Guinea. Both legitimate and disputed. In these cases he acted as a signatory on behalf of the Guinean Government.[18][19][20][21]
He was a signatory on one particular deal that has sparked the World Bank to open an investigation into Guinea’s mining sector.[22]
He has acted as a signatory on behalf of the country of Guinea in at least one commercial deal.[23]

I have outlined the above in order to clearly identify this person's notability in his own right and not inherited. It is also worth mentioning that it was not me that removed the original ‘speedy deletion’ notice. Thanks OscarK878 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did of course note that the primary author of the article should not be removing CSD notices from it, right? dangerous panda 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent CSD notice was removed (declined) by Mr Stradivarius in this edit. Mr Stradivarius has not otherwise edited the article at all. The previous one was also removed by an editor who has not otherwise edited the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still agree that there are no assertations of notability other than being the President's son

@ Oscar This a BLP first and foremost, the quality of the sources is in fact a central issue along with getting it right. I have tried to follow through your "evidence" and i'm not convinced i must say (see below). This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid.

Reason 1: the link provided is dead.the assertion is false, the decree in your article saying otherwise. Additionally in guinea, the ministry of planning is separate from the ministry of economy and finance [24]
Reason 2 is not in dispute and does not establish notability in my view. Take out the fact he's the son of a president, it's not notable.
Reason 3,5: these are the same allegations/sources that were posted in your original article recycled through various languages, they all seem to refer back to this sunday times article [25]. A bit of digging shows that the alleged contract can be downloaded at [26] it shows 2 ministers as signatories as does the original sunday times article
Reason 4: cite the sunday times referencing the original article signed by 2 ministers. rendering this false.

11:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)~

Thank you for your feedback Collins. I have now corrected the link to Reason 1. It clearly states (original in French) "Ministry of Economy, Finance and Planning" on pages 4 and 21. I concede using the term signatory was ambiguous in my statements above - the sentence in the published article is also misleading. Thank you for the research. English is my second language, after French, please forgive me. I have always, and continue to, welcome input on any of my contributions. The point I was trying to make is that his involvement in several deals involving the Guinean government has been widely reported on and is globally newsworthy. It may not weigh into the official Wikipedia guidelines: but his Wikipedia profile was viewed around 25 times on average every day since its creation (discounting the large number of hits it has received more recently since we begun this discussion). To me this indicates that this person is notable and the people of the world are interested in him. I agree the content of his page should be drafted very carefully and from reliable sources. Others seem to be incapable of looking beyond the fact that he is President's son. A fact which I am NOT hinging any of my statements of notability on. This discussion alone has illustrated that there is notable information out there. OscarK878 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Oscar, 1. "This discussion alone has illustrated that there is notable information out there" ==> EXISTENCE IS NO PROOF OF NOTABILITY. 2. Pageview stats are a common notability fallacy.T Additionally, the notability of an event ( "deals") does not imply the notability of people who may partake in it as your thesis seems to imply here. Stretching your argument, this character appears nowhere on the only things that seem verifiable in these articles : the signed contracts.I couldn't find a single credible instance of an interview, profile of this individual in any language on any source (reputable or not). Let's face it: the ONLY REASON this is here is BECAUSE he is the son a president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinsGen12 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that no other profile or interview exists for this person spurs me on to build this page as a collection of the information that is publically available about him and does exist. Clearly you and I directly disagree about whether this person is “notable enough” (or not) to have a page on Wikipedia. Rather than us making the same points over and over (and you mentioning that he is the president’s son, again) let’s get input from the more experienced neutral Wikipedia editors and get this discussion resolved. Thank you for your time OscarK878 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partially merge into Alpha Condé (specifically the background and personal life subsection) — Aside from being the son of the Guinean President (which in itself is not sufficient, as per a longstanding community consensus that notability is not inherited), the only real claim towards notability Mohammed may possess is that he is the official translator for his father (presumably French-English). From my understanding, the only two categories he could conceivably fall under would be either WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:POLITICIAN. For the former, there is very little in the way of significance on his part, as his work is largely limited to assisting communication between his father and South African President Jacob Zuma. As for the latter, although he holds an important position assisting the highest office of his country, he is not a prolific public figure, and his nation is not a major player on the international circuit (someone with a similar role in the U.S. or Iran might meet the criteria, but not in Guinea). I also suggest redirecting the page after the content has been merged (assuming of course that is the consensus). Kurtis (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your interest: I have updated the Mohammed Conde page with content I deem to be relevant to this discussion. I hope you find the content to be balanced, well referenced, unbiased and that it supports the notability discussion. I welcome any feedback. Thank you OscarK878 (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits undone. Seems intent on building an attack page in violation of BLP policies. CollinsGen12 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CollinsGen12, according Wikipedia’s article for deletion policy: “You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).” The fact that a discussion is taking place is not a valid reason for removing any content from the page in question. My edits were reported on this page as per the guidelines.

According to Wikipedia definition of an attack page: it is a page “that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject”. This article does not meet that description and the content has been written in an objective manner. The fact that some of the content is of a negative context does not constitute the person is being “attacked”. According the Wikipedia’s Cristicism guildelines: “Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia. When incorporating negative criticism, the POV policy requires that negative material be presented in a balanced and fair manner.”

The content I added adheres to the three core BLP policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) – You have rightfully contested the neutrality of the sourcing for the ‘Way Mark Infotech Procurement Deal’ section and I agree this section cannot be included with its current sourcing, this does not give you the right to delete other balanced and well sourced content. Every element of an edit should be considered on its own merit according to Wiki policy.
Verifiability (V) - The content is backed up by multiple sources.
No original research (NOR) - I have included media reports, no original research.

I have tried to be open about my edits, take advice and criticism on board, hoping we may be able to reason like adults. Clearly not, as you are removing legitimate content indiscriminately. I will now proceed to re-instate the sections I feel should be included in the article and create a section on the Talk page page for each section of content to allow discussion. I welcome your discussion and input: based on Wikipedia policy issues, rather than your personal motivations or views. This post will be copied into the Talk page as any issues regarding BLP should be discussed there and this page dedicated to the notability discussion. Thank you for your time OscarK878 (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YourI will just repaste here a comment to you from user JamesBWatson. It looks as though your account exists largely, if not entirely, to carry out a campaign to "expose" certain people and businesses that you disapprove of. However, Wikipedia does not exist as a platform for this kind of activity, and using it for this sort of purpose is likely to bring you into conflict with thee policy that articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Even if the criticisms you raise are valid, writing an article the main focus of which is making those criticisms is likely to give undue weight to one aspect of the subject of the article. If an editor seems to be persistently trying to edit to support a particular point of view, they may even be blocked from editing. Also, any page which seems to exist only to disparage its subject may be summarily deleted without warning, in accordance with the policy on speedy deletion. Even such articles as Adolf Hitler are not written in ways which do nothing but attack their subjects. You may find it helpful to look at the pages Wikipedia:Advocacy and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 12:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinsGen12 (talk • contribs)

This message posted above is clearly visible on my Talk page. I have intentionally not removed this message as it has been part of my Wikipedia learning process and it has driven me to be super open about everything and familiarise myself with the Wikipedia policies. For completeness let me add my response to JamesBWatson’s message: “Thank you both for the feedback. Looking back over my contributions I agree some of it has not been objectively written and I apologise for this. I will try not to let my emotions get involved when editing Wikipedia and to remain as objective as possible when updating pages. I will work on re-writing these pieces and look forward to discussing any issues with you. Thanks for your help.”

Dear CollinsGen12, are you trying to turn this into an attack on me? Rather than the discussion of notability it is intended to be? OscarK878 (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established.Righteousskills (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has always been an exception for the immediate family of heads of states, due to the general public interest and the consequent amount of material that is available. In this case, there certainly does seem to be enough material. this appears in essence to be a debate about the article contents. Personally. I think the content in question should be included in some manner, but not necessarily in the way that Oscar would write it. I am not myself aware of the particular state of things in Guinea. but I think at least some of the sourcing is adequate. It is absolutely uncalled for to remove an article because of a disagreement about the contents.This belongs not here, but the BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't find any source information and the ones cited look more like websites rather than Wikipedia reliable sources. The internet allows anyone to be a publisher of news/information and Wikipedia uses WP:RS to reduce the lentgh articles would reach if all info from the internet were allowed in. Wikipedia also uses WP:RS to take advantage of decisions made by Wikipedia reliable sources to include or exclude coverage of a topic. A topic needs to received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a stand-alone article. If you expect to see an article on this survice AfD, you need to limit the content of the Wikipedia article to only information that people reading and editing the article can check that each bit of information comes from a reliable source. When you use webpages with out considering whether they meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, people will object. On a different note, the name Mohammed Condé is common and I found information such as "After serving his nine month sentence Mohammed Conde, 30, was detained and faced being kicked out of the UK. But his deportation to his home country of Sierra Leone, West Africa, was eventually cancelled."[27]. "Bobi, Ivory Coast, Dec 24, 2009 (AFP) - From the shade of a makeshift shed, Mohammed Conde watches his workers turn over the red soil with shovels and pickaxes."[28]. "Kibumba Kasiala, Ntambwe Nkombe and Mohammed Conde were arrested after officers found two French and one Belgian passport.[29]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG – I welcome any contributions and have been open to criticism on my edits through my time on Wikipedia – which I think I have worked on and improved through educating myself in the Wiki policies. Thank you for your comments.
@Uzma Gamal – When I joined Wiki I passionately dived in head first. I have since taken the time to learn more about the Wiki policies and you may notice that the recent content I added (or at least tried to) is balanced and (as much as possible) from sources listed as "recognised media in Guinea outlets": [30]. I welcome any input on a better list of trusted Guinean sources. Other sources in my content that has been removed include the Sunday Times and reputable South Africa media outlets: News24 and Mail & Guardian. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarK878 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OscarK, This is not personal, it's about violations of standards set for BLPs: NPOV and Verifiability and Notability. I did my best to find reputable sources to back your editing without success on this particular person. That raises red flags as to how much rewriting can be done to "save your edits". Notability is an issue raised as an "original sin" argument by many on this board. Uzma Gamal raises the points that I've been trying to get across to you: writings on the net are not to be taken at face value irrespective of volume or location.Especially as they relate to people. BLP standards note that "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." In this case, Guinea is covered by a large number of credible news organisations AFP, RFI, REUTERS, VOA, BBC, VOA, AP... I tried a search for this individual on those services, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE ORGANISATIONS HAS A WORD ON HIM OR LINK HIM TO THE "CONTROVERSIES"AND THAT INCLUDE THE SUNDAY TIMES ARTICLE THAT SEEMS TO HAVE STARTED YOUR POSTINGS. This is in fact stunning as one has to believe that the son of a president would engage in the unsavory activities described by your "sources" as it ranges from Mining Corruption to Election Corruption to Environmental crimes etc...and not be picked up even a single time by these services whose credibility is not in question. This raises notability issues but more seriously it raises the issue of how credible are the sources that you are using.

CollinsGen12 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As ascertained from the sources utilized within the article, Mr. Condé has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources. Assuming the sources are reliable, this bio meets our notability standard. --Pink Bull 21:30, 9 September 2012 (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.