Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi

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 --Haemo 19:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi

Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

1) No assertion of notability. 2) Wikipedia is not a criminal database. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've used subst:adw templates on the talk pages of the editors that have more than the average number of edits but haven't apparently been involved in the discussion here yet, also I've reminded one contributor to this discussion that they may wish to vote as well as comment. I hope that's not excessive canvassing? I used Wikipedia Page History Statistics linked from WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion to get the list of contributors / number of edits / average edits. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Note Please insert a blank line before commenting, it makes it easier to insert further comments at the text they relate to. Thanks. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Whilst it may be a commendable activity to publicise the activities of criminals, criminality is not notability, and WP is not a criminal record system. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for non-notabilityJJJ999 03:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. He's not notable. Shalom ^Hello 13:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Subject is certainly notable within a somewhat narrow topic area. Also related to Lou Pearlman which certainly is of broad interest. Article is something of a battleground though, perhaps another approach is to find a relatively stable version and lock it for the time being? Shritwod 20:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: What do you believe makes the subject notable? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think you can judge by other sources (Google them) that there's some interest in this person. People such as Robert Soloway are listed, this person is not dissimilar in terms of activities Shritwod 12:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That might indicate that Solway should also be considered for AfD, rather than that El-Difrawi should be kept. The question is what makes El-Difrawi notable? I've searched extensively on him already, and I don't perceive notability. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It depends what circles you move in. Soloway is a big deal according to Microsoft and those who've sued him, but that's not the point. I think to prove notability, you need to look at El Difrawi's business activities rather than looking for him by name, because he takes care to conceal his identity. However, the business are all linked and easy enough to trace with the correct investigative tools. I don't want to put down your efforts with regards to this topic DMcMPO11AAUK because I find your POV valuable, but I guess I've dug into the evidence differently to come to my conclusions. Shritwod 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment So what aspect(s) of his business do you believe that El-Difrawi is actually notable for? I see an allegation that he may have been involved in the perpetration of large scale advance-fee fraud based on the promise of publicity to aspiring models and actors. I see no actual verifiable evidence to support this assertion, just a lot of allegations and tenuous links drawn between companies and names, sewn together with suppositions and assumptions. I don't doubt that for some standards the sources may be sufficient, but I don't believe that the sources meet the verifiability standards that WP aspires to. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This subject is notable enough to have several websites dedicated to his scams, is featured prominently in book about the modeling scam, and is particularly notable given the current events surrounding Lou Pearlman. The sheer number of people contributing to and vandalizing this article shows that it is a topic that a lot of people are familiar with 08:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk)

Comment There are possibly 4 editors with an interest in the article and me. I caught some vandalism on recent changes, then read the article, then looked at the references and decided some of them were insufficient to support the assertions they were being used for. My concern now is to try and ensure that references used in the article are suitable for the assertions they are used to support. I have to ask, though, what makes Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi notable? I see no evidence of "several websites dedicated to his scams," but perhaps "a few web sites mention him." That Lou Perlman is notable does not make Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi notable. That a person is mentioned in a book does not make them notable. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please note that the book that has been mentioned is self-published; using it as source violates a WP:BLP and WP:SELFPUB guideline that states, "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself." DylanKate 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Being mentioned in a self published book by a third party might help establish notability, however in this case the association between El-Difrawi and Pearlman is shown elsewhere eg an SEC filing that is a good reference. In this case I've seen no suggestion that the book includes any additional assertion of notability that hasn't been covered in the article already. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment What do you think makes Lou Pearlman notable? The fact that he was good at self publicity while Difrawi was good at hiding his activities does not make him more notable. I don't know what you're looking for. The fact that this guy started a company that ripped off hundreds of thousands of people and stole $3million through bank fraud is pretty notable to me. Major news outlets such as Dateline NBC and Fox have covered this guy's activities. There are at least half a dozen web sites on scams with multiple pages of information specifically about this one person. Apparently one has to put oneself in front of crappy boy bands to satisfy your need for notoriety. So, if you remove media mention and crime as sources of Notoriety, then I insist you mark for deletion John Gotti, Lou Pearlman, and Al Capone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Did I say that I thought Pearlman was notable? I'd never heard of him until I saw a suspicious modification of the El-Difrawi article crop up in a recent changes list and decided to have a look at it. John Gotti means nothing to me. Al Capone I've heard of. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment So you're definition of Notoriety is people you've heard of? So you will be going through Wikipedia and nominating for deletion anyone you haven't heard of? Sounds like a great policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC) DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Notoriety? I'm not discussing notoriety, I'm discussing notability. See comments above, El-Difrawi may be notable, but I see no evidence of such notability in sources that meet the standards that WP sets itself. Personally I don't believe he is notable. And no, my test of notability isn't based on whether I have heard of someone or not. There are many people I have heard of who are not notable, and there are many people I have not heard of who are notable. For example, I have no idea who currently holds the world speed record for pedal cycling, but I find it a notable achievement. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep though per BLP the minor unrelated crimes should be removed as irrelevant to the actual notability. DGG (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As above, what do you believe makes the subject notable? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No notablity asserted. As others said, WP is an encyclopedia, not a list of criminals. Steve Dufour 12:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: So I expect to see you and others suggesting the deletion of entries for john Gotti, Al Capone, and Jeffrey Dahlmer since they are just criminals and don't belong in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment' Criminality is not Notability. Those criminals that are mentioned in WP are not mentioned simply because they are criminals, but because of the nature, scope and scale of their activities. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please point me to the exact section of WP:BIO that states that the inclusion of criminals is dependent on the nature, scope, and scale of crime because I can't find it. What I can find is that Wikipedia finds notability in participation "in a significant event or controversy reported by credible news media". If this is the measure of notability I believe it's been met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The subject of this article does not coincide with Wikipedia's guidelines for notable content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandadanielle (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - NN. The article is 99% original research, using primary sources such as court cases dockets, and listing websites abiut which there is no certainty of its origin or author(s). It should be speedied. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I believe that several editors are trying to establish links to many sources which have been deleted by a certain employee of Mr. Defrawy. Nobody here has said what makes someone notable. How about a person who started one of the largest modeling companies in the world, is apparently running for congress, and is a principal in dozens of other companies. Crimes and BS aside, this guy is everywhere and into everything. Whether or not you believe the article has been biased or the result of edit wars has no bearing on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC) DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Nobody here has said what makes someone notable. - see WP:BIO --Sc straker 04:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for non-notability. Although I commented on this page earlier, I was hesitant to weigh in on deletion since I am employed by the subject of the article and didn't want my opinion to be perceived as biased. However, DMcMPO11AAUK left a message on my talk page encouraging me to vote, so here's my two cents' worth. DylanKate 13:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think El-Difrawi's eeeehrm "Internet marketing" methods are highly interesting, and big-scale enough to be notable. Still growing and getting more sophisticated, too. I partly agree with DDG about the "minor" (what's minor about child abuse?) criminal cases. They should be there imho but could do with a less prominent description, I'll give that a shot. --SooperJoo 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:BIO for notability. --Sc straker 04:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Gee let's actually take a look at the WP:BIO criteria for notability instead of just declaring that it doesn't meet the standard.

Under General I see: "Has been the participant in a significant event or controversy reported by credible news media." Hmmmm - I can't see how anybody could argue against that. Particularly with the work that has been done here recently, credible news media sources have been cited to document his connection to a significant controversy. I believe notability has been achieved and thus the inclusion of primary sources is acceptable according to Wikipedia policy.

Here we go: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines"

Comment there's nothing substantial to date about the coverage of El-Difrawi, nor does the controversy appear significant. "Significant" news stories get repeated international coverage, not sporadic local comment. Most of the news stories about El-Difrawi seem to be wire service copy that's been used as filler by various media on slow news days. For example, el-difrawi seems to be so notable in such a significant story that outside of US newsprint, radio and local news, as far as I can tell, he's never been featured. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 18:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You've clearly made up your mind. So now, you've listed your definition of "significant" news coverage. Again, I disagree and Wikipedia policy is ambiguous. El-Difrawy was featured on dateline NBC, but unfortunatley there's no real way to link to the story since you'd have to pay for a transcript and third party sites aren't good sources. I believe the shear volume of news coverage, along with the fact that his phishing scams are getting national press are significant. I believe the fact that the modeling scam took in 150,000 people makes the controversy significant. He was convicted of stealing millions through bank and wire fraud (made national news). Now that his business is implicated in one of the largest money-laundering and ponzi schemes in history - he's even more significant. He founded Transcontinental Talent - and that is all over international news (even if his name has yet to be mentioned since big Lou is getting all the attention). Again this article is developing while people work to track down news. Unfortunatley some of it is so old it's no longer available from it's original source, and linking to something like a Newsweek article on someone elses site is (I believe) unacceptable. Just look at the sheer volume of valid material that's been added in such a short period of time. Even if what's here isn't enough, deletion would be premature as this article shows significant progress.

Again I think he's very notable, and you don't. Clearly every time I come up with something to satisfy the criteria you list here, you'll find some other criteria that you don't think it satisfies. I sincerely believe that WP:BIO criteria for notability has already been met. Unless you can show me a good counter definition by Wikipedia for significance, then I am not likely to agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias aside I think the lack of notability argument is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2007 (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.