The result was delete. Largely per BLP-related arguments j⚛e decker talk 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
As one of the most left winged inclusionists, I almost never nominate anything for AfD except when I see a blatant violation article such as this one. This is a glaring misuse of Wikipedia and is a WP:PROMO, WP:SELFPROMOTE, and WP:VANITY page. Despite the few sources which are obviously news, there is not a chance anyone would ever write an article on this person except himself or a close associate ( WP:NOTNEWS). Zero accomplishments besides, from what I see as, an attempt to sue the IRS and claim harassment (very common occurrence). This article can be revisited if the outcome favors him, but until then this is absolutely trivial. All expansive edits were done by SPAs and IP editors, can't see anything significant about his company either. The biographical information links to personal dropboxs (citations [1], [2], and [4]), clearly a conflict of interest. It is regrettable that this person was able to get away with this for nearly six years. In fact he has been freeriding Wikipedia to make himself more notable and has pushed sources of himself up to the front page of search engines. This is the very thing we are trying to prevent so Speedy/Strong Delete and Salt, obviously this person will try again. Valoem talk contrib 08:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
All references are news, except 7 and 8, which appear to be opinion pieces. If the dropbox referenced pdf files [1], [2] are a violation of wikipedia policy on conflict of interest, they should be changed to the web version of the same news articles. See links, http://www.blackenterprise.com/mag/the-personal-touch/ & http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2007/05/21/story13.html?page=all
It's not clear why Valoem believes this article was written by the article's subject. There is no way to determine if that is true, especially six years after creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.19 ( talk) 11:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, the subject's IRS lawsuit was filed in March 2014, and references [6], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] are news articles that have been written in the past 45 days. I do not think it is clear based on this that wikipedia has been used to push sources of the subject's to the front page of search engines. Those references are from highly trafficked websites, such as philly.com, and phillymag.com, which organically appear high in search results. Philly.com is one of the most popular news sites in Philadelphia, and has a high number of unique visitors, one factor in search engine placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.19 ( talk) 12:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe the community should Keep and Expand the article, based on the thirteen news references. If a rewrite is necessary, a verifiable article can be written based on the sources. The news sources are independent and have editorial control. 166.205.55.19 ( talk) 12:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep The subject's recent coverage on 6abc WPVI-TV and 6abc.com make the subject notable, in addition to the independent sources such as Philly.com and The Philadelphia Business Journal. 12.30.250.6 ( talk) 13:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep The article has many references, and has a tv interview of the subject, on 6 ABC, which is broadcast throughout the region. Regional news coverage about the subject is a strong indication of notability according to Wiki guidelines. 50.243.42.187 ( talk) 16:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep The subject meets the notability guidelines based on the citations. 166.137.12.107 ( talk) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Speedy keep Valeom's nomination of this article for the Afd process was in bad-faith. The Forbes article, article citation [8] which he reference in his comment above was cited as his reason for changing from speedy/strong delete and salt originally to today redirect was already on the article prior to his referring this to Afd. In addition, Valeom cites "is not news" is not on point. Wikipedia considers enduring notability. The subject article has citations from February/March 2012 and September 2012 and 10+ citations from March/April 2014. It is clear that for some reason Valeom is biased in this matter and began this discussion for disruption purposes. While some of the information in this article may belong at Chaka Fattah the subject article meets notability guidelines and Valeom should refrain from bad-faith Afd recommendations. 166.137.12.107 ( talk) 01:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Speedy keep As shown above, the user who recommended this for articles for deletion has changed his request to delete this article. The subject meets notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.108.152 ( talk) 02:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The result was delete. Largely per BLP-related arguments j⚛e decker talk 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
As one of the most left winged inclusionists, I almost never nominate anything for AfD except when I see a blatant violation article such as this one. This is a glaring misuse of Wikipedia and is a WP:PROMO, WP:SELFPROMOTE, and WP:VANITY page. Despite the few sources which are obviously news, there is not a chance anyone would ever write an article on this person except himself or a close associate ( WP:NOTNEWS). Zero accomplishments besides, from what I see as, an attempt to sue the IRS and claim harassment (very common occurrence). This article can be revisited if the outcome favors him, but until then this is absolutely trivial. All expansive edits were done by SPAs and IP editors, can't see anything significant about his company either. The biographical information links to personal dropboxs (citations [1], [2], and [4]), clearly a conflict of interest. It is regrettable that this person was able to get away with this for nearly six years. In fact he has been freeriding Wikipedia to make himself more notable and has pushed sources of himself up to the front page of search engines. This is the very thing we are trying to prevent so Speedy/Strong Delete and Salt, obviously this person will try again. Valoem talk contrib 08:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
All references are news, except 7 and 8, which appear to be opinion pieces. If the dropbox referenced pdf files [1], [2] are a violation of wikipedia policy on conflict of interest, they should be changed to the web version of the same news articles. See links, http://www.blackenterprise.com/mag/the-personal-touch/ & http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2007/05/21/story13.html?page=all
It's not clear why Valoem believes this article was written by the article's subject. There is no way to determine if that is true, especially six years after creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.19 ( talk) 11:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, the subject's IRS lawsuit was filed in March 2014, and references [6], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] are news articles that have been written in the past 45 days. I do not think it is clear based on this that wikipedia has been used to push sources of the subject's to the front page of search engines. Those references are from highly trafficked websites, such as philly.com, and phillymag.com, which organically appear high in search results. Philly.com is one of the most popular news sites in Philadelphia, and has a high number of unique visitors, one factor in search engine placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.19 ( talk) 12:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe the community should Keep and Expand the article, based on the thirteen news references. If a rewrite is necessary, a verifiable article can be written based on the sources. The news sources are independent and have editorial control. 166.205.55.19 ( talk) 12:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep The subject's recent coverage on 6abc WPVI-TV and 6abc.com make the subject notable, in addition to the independent sources such as Philly.com and The Philadelphia Business Journal. 12.30.250.6 ( talk) 13:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep The article has many references, and has a tv interview of the subject, on 6 ABC, which is broadcast throughout the region. Regional news coverage about the subject is a strong indication of notability according to Wiki guidelines. 50.243.42.187 ( talk) 16:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep The subject meets the notability guidelines based on the citations. 166.137.12.107 ( talk) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Speedy keep Valeom's nomination of this article for the Afd process was in bad-faith. The Forbes article, article citation [8] which he reference in his comment above was cited as his reason for changing from speedy/strong delete and salt originally to today redirect was already on the article prior to his referring this to Afd. In addition, Valeom cites "is not news" is not on point. Wikipedia considers enduring notability. The subject article has citations from February/March 2012 and September 2012 and 10+ citations from March/April 2014. It is clear that for some reason Valeom is biased in this matter and began this discussion for disruption purposes. While some of the information in this article may belong at Chaka Fattah the subject article meets notability guidelines and Valeom should refrain from bad-faith Afd recommendations. 166.137.12.107 ( talk) 01:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Speedy keep As shown above, the user who recommended this for articles for deletion has changed his request to delete this article. The subject meets notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.108.152 ( talk) 02:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)