Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannibal Brumskine III

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 as spam. There is unambiguous consensus against retaining the article. Unusual influx of single-purpose accounts discounted, obviously. El_C 05:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Brumskine III

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Hannibal Brumskine III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run-of-the-mill businessman who does not satisfy general notability. The article does not show significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Naïve Google search shows that Hannibal Brumskine II and Hannibal Brumskine III exist and that III uses social media. We knew that.

Article was created by paid editor in violation of conflict of interest policy, which could be dealt with by moving to draft space for review, but there is already also a draft. The draft can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

·Keep. The individual covered in the article's references are not run of the mill and the article's topics and stories themself explain why the individual is not. The coverage is also significant, hence why there is an Early Life section in this article. If you'd like to see that section improved, then please offer constructive suggestions. African publications and the Wikipedia pages that are established from them are important. As for the paid editor, this was disclosed on the article's talk page in compliance with Wikipedia's position. “Hannibal Brumskine II and Hannibal Brumskine III exist, and that III uses social media. We knew that.” Not sure what you mean by this? 68.100.232.86 (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - The sources seem like paid churnalism and thinly-veiled press releases, and combined the sheer amount of WP: Meatpuppetry in this deletion discussion, this seems like a coordinated media campaign initiated on behalf of the subject. We should not be beholden to such venality. I hope the closing admin will take note of this. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For international (specifically sub-Saharan) public figures it doesn’t get much more notable than this. Take heed to avoid western biases when assessing references and the persons they objectively choose to highlight. Raheel086 (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree that this is a non notable Run-of-the-mill article. Alex-h (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note to closer: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theaugustguy, which concluded that there has been meatpuppetry and canvassing although not sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It meets the general notability guideline. The notability exhibited in this article's references are from multiple sources, so it doesn’t represent only one author's point of view. If we’re going strictly by the GNG then this article stays. Shivam Sharma 1997 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)— Shivam Sharma 1997 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - Note to closer: The only thing concluded is that more evidence is needed to justify those particular claims. @Robert McClenon: @GeneralNotability: @Mailer diablo/A: It is much more productive to focus on discussing the article at hand - replying to votes above and promoting healthy discussion - then to try and crumble the foundation of the article that you specifically nominated for deletion by pivoting to unsubstantiated claims. 98.186.215.198 (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, there's quite a bit of evidence that editors were hired to create the article (both acknowledged it); that people have been hired to write and publish articleas about the subject in many of the sources used in the article (and thus they are not independent); and that people have been hired to vote to to keep the article here. - Bilby (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bilby: Please provide proof for your claim that two editors were hired to create the article. One correctly states that they were hired on this articles talk page, making it properly disclosed - check out the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure - so in fact your tag could actually be removed for this. This is just an example of claims that either 1. are disproven when you stick to the law of Wikipedia or that 2. have no substantial evidence. 98.186.210.98 (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:OlmstedS declared here; I thought that User:Gurmani5 declared, but they created the first version here and have since been blocked for undisclosed paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Bilby: Yes, the user that declared on the talk page has done so correctly under Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If this is correct, your tag should be removed or I can remove it shortly. If User: Gurmani5 has not declared and has no connection with this page, then it's not of interest to the discussion for this particular articles of deletion. I'll trust, that whoever is blocking accounts is doing so in good faith, but as for this discussion let's focus on the arguments at hand. Thanks for your involvement and for clearing that up Bilby.
            • The tag notes that the page was edited for pay. This is still the case, whether or not someone has since stated that they were hired, so it is still needed on the article. User:Gurmani5 wrote the earlier draft of the article as an undisclosed paid editor, so yes, that has a connection with the current issue. - Bilby (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Bilby: Please reference something for me to get up to speed with needing to keep the tag on the page, even after disclosure, I'm not up to speed on this. And I still don't see a tangible, real life connection between two people who write an article about the same thing. Nonetheless, please send information regarding keeping the tag, even after disclosure.
                • The tag reads "This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." The cleanup issues concern establising that the content meets requriements, not whether or not there has been disclosure. - Bilby (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Bilby: Great, so if you're making that tag in good faith, go to the talk page like the tag says and discuss it further. The article has neutral point of view for me, but if you think it doesn't then discuss it on the talk page. You haven't done so or welcomed it for others and your tag just floats in limbo.
  • Strong Keep Panel on uc berkeley talked about this very things! Wikipedia, yes, has democratized the information landscape but racial bias on wiki is still documented .. and it might even be seen right here as you scroll throughout this page. the decision of this page will show that either wiki is moving away from being a knowledge repository with bias or one where you’ll continuously be met with gatekeepers who blatantly go against wiki’s standard to silence minority voices, stories and figures - ignoring how we see things and ignoring the merit that our publications demand. The Guardian? That is the new york times of africa. Vanguard? That is our washington post! I love the challenge that this article of deletion brings to our wiki community, because we are signing off with our usernames, thus immortalizing our values here on this page for the entire world wide web to see. Kindly. Aditya108108 (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)— Aditya108108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Note to closer: Investigate the proposed spa tags for validity - ensuring they weren't done in sabotage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.186.210.98 (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2021 (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/Hannibal_Brumskine_III&oldid=1008673540"