- 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. I was tempted to do a procedural close and restart this AFD because of all of the sock activity but I assume that would also occur on a 3rd AFD. While I hate giving sockpuppets what they are seeking, I'm persuaded by the arguments for those advocating Delete that this BLP is basically an attack page. This is not saying that the subject could not have an article in the future just that this one isn't suitable for the project. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John Babikian[edit]
- John Babikian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
John Babikian is not a historical significant person. He had a trial for penny stock fraud for which he was recently found not guilty. The divorce amount mentioned isn't relative cause that case was dropped. Finally, the creator of this page joined Wiki in January 2017 and was banned the same day immediately after creating this page which is very suspicious.
See the creator of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Inimfon Babile266 (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This page should be removed. It doesn't qualify as a Biography of Living Person (BLP's), nor does John Babikian have any historical significance. Per the rules cited here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons ), "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid".
- Let me summarize the content: It begins with an ugly expensive divorce where according to court testimony, the wife hired a PR agency to damage her ex's name to extort a $100m settlement. After the $100 million dollar demands got thrown out of court, John is later found not-guilty for penny stock crimes. The only thing with merit seems to be some fees paid to the SEC without Babikian ever admitting guilt. Ultimately, this is pretty much the life story of 99% of all bankers working on Wall Street. In short, this is all tabloid material, but the person and content are definitely not Wikipedia page worthy. Danielcohens (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning delete. The crimes and amounts seem rather small-scale overall, and therefore run-of-the-mill. BD2412 T 14:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep many mentions in Canadian media, under the name "Loup de Montreal" (Wolf of Montreal). Mentioned in a Globe and Mail article [1], Vice news [2], these in the Journal de Montreal in 2014 and 2015, [3], [4] and here [5], mentioned in the Wall Street Journal [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- He's also been thought to have been involved with a Cayman Islands bank fraud [7], so he's gathered a fair bit of media attention. As recently as 2019, they were still discussing him and how he seemed to have disappeared [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- He's also been mentioned in Oregon, as he has some dealings with a vineyard [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
● Strongly Vote to Delete based on testimony in a federal court by the former VP of Weber Shandwick (the worlds largest PR firm) who claimed John Babikian's ex-wife hired them to brand him as "The Wolf of Montreal". https://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/john-babikian-acquitted-all-penny-stock-fraud-charges/ . The fact a top PR firm was hired to shame him draws a symmetrical line between the original author of this page who was subsequently banned by Wikipedia the very day of its origination for using multiple accounts. Let's face it, it's clear as day all reference to any article containing the words "Wolf of Montreal" is part of a strategic defamation campaign.
Suffice to say, all the old articles I found on Babikian claim over 10 years ago he was some mysterious wealthy figure under suspicion for pump and dump scams. But after reading the more recent articles, especially the testimony of the VP of Weber Shandwick, it all makes sense. I also read the Caymen Island article posted above about bank fraud in translation from French to English and found nothing of substance other than "suspicions" using the same "Wolf of Montreal" branding cited by Journal De Montreal. Hover your mouse over the Journal De Montreal and you will see Wikipedia cites it as a "Daily News Tabloid". So I agree with the person who submitted this page for deletion cause Wikipedia rules on living person biographies stipulate Wikipedia is not a tabloid, rather an encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Also, the more recent articles about John Babikian all state he was fully exonerated from all penny stock fraud related allegations by a US Federal court. So what exactly is John so famous for that he deserves to be in a encyclopedia?
The only negative thing I could find worth noting was a SEC settlement. I mean if you pay a traffic ticket without going to court, your admitting guilt. According to the Wall Street Journal listed in the citation above [10], John was required to pay $3.7m without being required to admit or deny the allegations. Even the WSJ says the charges by the SEC pertain to one single newsletter email he sent to promote some stock. That hardly makes him a pump and dump scam artist. So lets face it, journalists and PR agents don't decide the guilt or innocence of a person, rather courts do. Thus I vote delete cause Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a suspenseful news tabloid describing expensive dirty divorces, nice houses or cars, nor succumb to manipulative PR company negative defamation campaigns, nor was it designed to make a big deal out of administration fees levied by the government (otherwise, anybody who ever got fined by the SEC or a parking ticket would be on Wikipedia), etc. I'm not pro rich Wall Street hustlers (very opposite), but after reading what the judge said in his verdict about John's ex-wife hiring a top PR agency to ruin his name in effort to extort a $100m, and reviewing the fact this page was created by an account that was deleted (for abusing multiple accounts) the same exact day this page on John Babikian was created (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Inimfon&action=edit&redlink=1 ) - I conclude this should be deleted.YTKevduck (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The Journal de Montreal is sensational perhaps, but they are a reliable source, as they don't publish fabricated or false stories. About the same quality as the Toronto Sun. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- He's also gathered interest as a rich person in Quebec, they talk about the large house he's built and the cars he drives, regardless of what he did or didn't do. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And he's widely discussed for owing back taxes in Quebec, 15 million dollars or so, regardless of what happened with the stock trial. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article you referenced is nearly a decade old. WP:BLPPRIMARY are not designed for wealthy individuals owning nice cars, houses, etc., or those who owe taxes. If that were the case, the majority of the financial sectors millionaires and billionaires would have their own dedicated page. Let's be honest, most of the wealthiest people in society have expensive homes and vehicles, get divorced and they evade paying taxes, etc. His story may create sensational tabloid material, but its just not encyclopedia worthy. Pepinko08 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
● Delete John Babikian was branded as "The Wolf of Montreal" by a known PR agency hired by his ex-spouse who at the time was suing him for millions in divorce court. The citations reveal the divorce court didn't give her a penny and the federal courts acquitted him of all penny stock related criminal charges. Hardly a reason to have a biography on Wikipedia. Also, most of the referenced articles are nearly 10 years old labeling him as "The Wolf of Montreal" which by court verdict is essentially defamatory. Wikipedia Community (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- He's also covered for being involved in a vineyard and for owing millions in back taxes, neither of which are "defamatory". Oaktree b (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reuters coverage of his need to pay a fine regardless of a conviction [11] and he's covered in a Radio Canada story [12]. The idea is that we tell his story, not if he was guilty or not. He's also covered in a story from St. Kitts and Nevis, giving details such as the fact that he holds 4 passports and fled to Monaco [13].He's also discussed in a page or two in a criminology textbook [14]. He's also been linked to the Pandora Papers [15]. Is also mentioned in the Norwegian press [16]. He ended up paying a substantial fine and still owes back taxes, should be enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I'm neither inclusionist or deletionist I find that equivocal notability can result in stubby articles with little scope for progression. This article covers a criminal conviction which never happened and a house that didn't get built. While there are reliable sources, eg this vice article, the sources report on a single event from the time of the even which to my mind still makes the source primary in nature and to me the lack of biographical overview confirms this. Most of the sources are primary in nature so we've ended up with an attack page here with WP:BLPPRIMARY written all over it. If those voting keep can produce a WP:BLP compliant article based on verifiable secondary and tertiary sources then I'll happily defect to the other side and change my vote to keep.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 13:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are a lot of reliable sources on the life and adventures of Babikian, I see no doubt that they are enough for WP:N. The article is a mess, but that is another story. Moonraker (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article doesn't fit the standard for WP:BLPPRIMARY. Who really cares about his divorce or judicial acquittal, a house never built, or about an "alleged partner" of Babikian, etc? I mean even mentioning that unanswered letters with questions were sent to his lawyer isn't worthy of Wikipedia. So I vote to delete. Pepinko08 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. I've read through the page and at least 7 of the cited news article references, yet still feel the person lacks any reason for having his own dedicated page on Wiki. LloydPlayz (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To assist others in voting, the real question is what are Wikipedia's rules and criteria for Biographies of Living People? So I'll start by quoting the WP:BLP rules: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". So let's examine the page and facts cause I'll put in bold the keypoints pertaining to each section of the John Babikian page. The content begins by describing how John's notoriety was based off a $100m divorce by his ex-wife that made headlines. Later in the content, it states the wife's demands were thrown out of court, and even references a court site showing she rescinded her allegations of stock fraud against him. At the far bottom of the wiki page, the judge said "While Mrs. Babikian was not a witness in these proceedings, nor has she ever been accused of a crime, the court has come to the conclusion she was in fact indirectly involved in manipulating the government to act on her behalf in effort to uncover her ex-husband’s bank accounts". So before I get to questioning the veracity and integrity of other portions of this Wiki page, let me start by clarifying I don't think any WP:BLP should ever begin with a persons notoriety being based off demands for money in a divorce settlement case, especially when a Federal Judge clearly refers to her as a manipulator. Remember, anybody can sue for millions, but that doesn't constitute a foundation for notoriety. The wiki article additionally references an expensive home, yet says it was never built or lived in - so why is it even mentioned? The wiki article further describes letters sent to his lawyers by the media that were never answered. Since when does not answering the media worthy of being cited on a Wiki page, or require 2 separate references? Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, hence there is no historical value for this type of content on Wikipedia! The page on John Babikian additionally states, "The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority brought separate charges against an alleged partner of Babikian, stockbroker Thomas Belesis, for selling ahead of his clients on the same company. Belesis was eventually disbarred." Notice the keywords "alleged partner", "stockbroker" and "disbarred"? I checked the Wikipage of Thomas Belesis which details his crimes and there is no mention at all of John Babikian's involvement to substantiate "alleged partner". But pay attention, even the reference to Thomas being "disbarred" is a sham cause Thomas was never a lawyer nor credited by the Bar Association, rather just a stock broker. According to this Investmentnews.com article, Thomas was only BARRED from stock trading and the securities industry. Big difference between BARRED and DISBARRED. But let's go back to John cause this page goes on and on to contradict itself. For example, the wiki page dedicates a portion of John Babikian's biography claiming "In 2020, he disappeared, amid allegations of tax evasion.", citing page 80 of a Google ebook. I clicked on the referenced Google Ebook to read, and it revealed a blank page. But then I used common sense to conclude the statements relating to "disappearing" and "taxes" are bogus by simply scrolling further down in the actual John Babikian Wiki page where it states: "After an eight year investigation and subsequent Covid-19 delayed trial, Babikian was found not guilty". Notice, the words "Covid delayed trial?" This proves the statement inside of the wikipage of John "disappearing in 2020 for taxes" isn't true cause the entire world was forced on lockdown throughout 2020. It also proves after the lockdowns, John did show up for court to clear his name, so clearly he wasn't running from the tax authority or federal government. So now that I debunked the disappearing portion of the text, I'd like dive even deeper to debunk with common sense the statement of "owing taxes" as stated in the Wikipage. At the end of this referenced article it states "...the judge ordered over $100 million dollars in cash and property seized by authorities to be immediately return to Mr. Babikian". So again, using simple common sense, this statement disproves owing outstanding taxes, otherwise the courts wouldn't release back to him the money. I could go on and on, but I think my points show this page is full of so many misrepresentations that contradict common sense. Finally, regardless whether the sources are cited by "credible media" is not important cause the media makes money off stories, but the courts are the final arbitrator. Also, I should note even if certain portions about John are true (yes, I did find he was in fact fined nearly 10 years ago for $3.7m by the SEC), that is hardly a reason to have a dedicated biography page under the rules of WP:BLP OKamigo (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This material doesn't belong in the Britannica or Wiki encyclopedias as it lacks even minimal historical benefit. The sole purpose of Wikipedia in general as an encyclopedia, and WP:BLP in particular (especially pertaining to a living persons biography) is to highlight the legacy of notable people. This person is not notable for digital marketing or anything else. He's tabloid famous for an expensive car, a lavish house, divorce proceedings, and a bunch of investigations that resulted in a full judicial acquittal.Mithurjan (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck multiple sockpuppets. Greyjoy talk 03:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- User Compositngforlife has also sent me an email asking me to reconsider, I do think the socks are out in force now. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that account be checked for sock or meat puppetry? It's a brand new account with knowledge of how to email wiki editors, and zero edits outside of a talk page and the email sent to me. Here is their page [17]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- .Oaktree b, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mithurjan. I don't see that editor listed on the SPI case. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I'm still navigating the various nuances of AfD, sock-puppet investigations, I've not yet mastered. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning delete BLP with the only notoriety stemming from extravagant displays of wealth and white collar crimes the individual was acquitted of (unreliable source regarding acquittal?). Most of the coverage is in the context of unconvicted fraud allegations. Babikian has no notability as a businessman or "digital marketing expert". Are unconvicted criminal allegations the basis for his notability? Would an article have been created were it not for the accusations? Source checking (many of which are a bit sensationalist in their reporting, some borderline tabloid-like) shows that Babikian has covered mostly as a suspect of a fraud, but he has been acquitted of all charges. If the only basis for notability is his alleged wrongdoings, should BLP not trump GNG? Mooonswimmer 22:05, 4 January 2023 (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.