Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Ajudua

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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fred Ajudua

Fred Ajudua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article is unsourced and possibly not notable. Interestingly, there has been a large amount of text removed from this article from previous edits, but no reverts? (I don't have rollback capabilities). Nothing indicating blatant vandalism, but can someone check it out? — Kortaggio ^{Proclamations} _Declarations 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral. A Google News search indicates that the subject was charged with advance-fee fraud but I haven't been able to find the result of his trial. Clearly there are sources that mention him but I am not sure how much information they actually provide. The fact that the article has been on Wikipedia for three years should be considered a point in favor of keeping it. Finally, anyone can check out the history of the article by looking at the versions found at the history page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable - the best known of the 419 advance-fee fraud artists. Generally, fraudsters and other criminals are not particularly notable, but this one has been getting international news coverage. I added some external links to the article, which needs expansion to cover the material provided in these sources. Something odd has been happening with the article. Looking at previous versions, sometimes they have nothing but praise for Fred Ajudua the philanthropist, sometimes nothing but anger about Fred Ajudua the criminal. References appear and are removed. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: Expanded the article to include content from the external sources. If the decision is "keep", it will be interesting to see subsequent activity on the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Question: This article focuses too much on negative parts of the person. Why would this be acceptable under BLP?- Mgm|^(talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Does the article represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (WP:NPOV)? I just summarized content from the most obvious sources, which are all negative and focus on the criminal activity and damage it caused. Ajudua seems to be notable for his frauds. If there are reliable independent sources that are more positive, perhaps sources that describe Ajudua's philanthropic efforts mentioned in earlier versions of the article, this information should also be included. My cursory check did not turn up any. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - There are a number of sources provided to establish notability. Scapler (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (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.