Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley Fletcher

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was requested to clarify the closure; on a headcount, 12d/9k; sourcing was improved during the AFD to the extent that some people changed their !votes to keep, and others mentioned it too. As DGG pointed out, the WP:BLP criteria for deletion don't apply since the subject has not requested deletion. The matter of WP:V and WP:BIO are to be interpreted by the community, and while I personally don't think he is notable, it is not for me to substitute my own judgment or opinion for an unbiased closure. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Fletcher

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

Questionable notability and possible hoax. Claims to be king of the "Se Kingdom" but could not verify the existence of this kingdom (purportedly containing 2 million people) independently. The references from the Ghanaian press do not confirm his identity, merely repeat his own claims. The website for the Se Kingdom appears to have been created by the subject. (The remaining two items are anecdotal and only encourage further investigation, not a decision) This blog post contains comments from Ghanaians saying that the author has been hoaxed. I also called my Ghanaian brother-in-law and he insists that no such King or Kingdom exists. I've got a suspicion that we've been conned here Manning (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or move to an article about hoaxes and phony legal threats. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (added 29/9: easily passes WP:GNG now; AfD has resulted in clear improvement to the article. It was reasonable to nominate it as it was -- but in its current version I seriously doubt this article would have been nominated for deletion) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC) -- the person (Kingsley Fletcher) clearly does exist: his books are listed on Amazon, and the articles in Ghana Business News support some key claims in the article. Even the existence of a "Se Kingdom" seems to be verified in those articles, and we don't normally accept comments in blog posts or the word of an editor's brother-in-law over what is in reliable sources. This article was created by a PR company working on behalf of the subject (see here), and a few of us worked to make it more reasonable. If it is deleted, the redirect Adamtey I would also have to go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you've got a point. Here's a listing for the book [1] with his majesty on the cover (wearing a suit, not royal robes). If this is at least partly for-real, some further investigation is needed. Unless this guy is a front for the guy who once advocated putting pants on animals, to see who would buy into it. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a side note - my partner is a diplomat and she will contact the Ghana High Commission tomorrow to get their take on this alleged kingdom. Nomoskedasticity - if the guy is legit, he's legit. But I smell hoax right now (about the "king" status at least) which is why I want to investigate further. If I'm wrong I will gladly admit as much. Manning (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Keep in mind that the article doesn't say he is a king; it used to say that, but we took care of that a long time ago. I doubt anyone will be able to verify that there is a kingdom of some sort, but that's not what the article is claiming. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to know more, but if it is a hoax, it is bigger than us. In Business Week: "... I was told by Kingsley Fletcher, also known as King Adamtey I, the Suapolor or traditional ruler of the Se (Shai) state in Ghana." - Bilby (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It might still be a hoax: gullible journalist listens to someone's claims and limits efforts at verification to a quick check of Wikipedia (where the article contains claims placed by the subject) -- it wouldn't be the first time. It's only the existence of the Ghana Business News articles that prevent me from agreeing that it's a hoax -- you'd figure they know something about their own country. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True enough. That said, the Business Week article predates the Wikipedia one by about 12 months, so the question is whether or not they were fooled, not whether or not they based the claim on us. If it helps, this article in PC World mentions him and his "Life for Africa" program, but nothing about being a King/Suapolor. And it seems that he spoke, as King, at the World Congress of Families in Amsterdam.[2] I'm leaning towards him being genuine. Whether or not he is notable is a different concern. - Bilby (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep (as per Chris Johnson, below. The article now incorporates enough sources to indicate minor notability/notoriety). The man almost certainly exists. The discussion can focus on whether or not he actually meets WP:BIO criteria. A couple of lines in Business Week, PC World and a single article in the Ghanian press do not notability make. The very fact that we can't establish the basic facts of who he is speaks against his notability and inclusion here. There are hundreds of published authors in West Africa, thousands of traditional leaders and tens of thousands of people quoted in Business Week. None of these by themselves are any claim to inclusion here. Delete on the basis of failing the basic criteria of WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:POLITICIAN.--Whoosit (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia: WikiProject Ghana is currently inactive, but I will list this debate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa to solicit informed opinions on this chap's claims. --Whoosit (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. User Enric Naval (talk) has done some digging and come up with some further references in the Mexican press, of all places... See Talk:Kingsley Fletcher. --Whoosit (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are some interesting results. I speak Spanish and will try to see what I can make of them later (without being limited by automated translation). To the extent that a wikipedia article can use stuff like this to poke through someone's pretensions, I think it could be a useful article. Perhaps notability is still a problem, but if we can expand it with better sourcing then perhaps we could end up with something useful here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Whoosit (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When we can't establish basic facts about his life, it speaks volumes about his notability. Although his article gives several indications of "notability" we can only find sourcing for one of them. Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very weak keep, (changed because Nomoskedasticity has added a few sources, mainly the two Herald-Sun sources). The only reliable coverage that I can find about his kingship status was a minor scandal in Mexico when a local governor invited the "king" to boost his credibility and paid the local press to reproduce the photography with the "king". This backfired when a journalist dennounced that the governor had been deceived because this person was a "charlatan" and a "fraud", not a king, and not a Ghana diplomat.
About being a king, he is actually the "Suapolor (development chief) of the Se traditional area in Dangme West"[3]. Ghana districts are governed by Assembly Districts, and the Traditional Councils help them. Note: "The Traditional Council is a statutory body and has the Paramount Chief as the Head. It is the lowest level of authority and sees to the welfare and progress of the whole traditional area."[4] A worthy cause, but this guy is not a "king". If I understand correctly, he is not even the Paramount chief but the Development chief.
The "coronation" seems to be a party with dancing that is held when the Council Chiefs are elected (it seems that there are several types of chiefs for each Traditional Council, like a Defence chief). The only news piece about his actuation as a Suapolor seems to be that he initiated the project of "an education centre for students (in Dodowo, Ghana)" in association with the North Carolina Central University (NCCU)[5]. Notice that the university is based in Durham, where Kingsley is a pastor.
So, the "king" part is a non-notable wild exaggeration of his role as Development Chief in a Traditional Council.
For WP:AUTHOR, he has a role as evangelist and pastor. I can't find any reviews of his works or relevant cites, so I would say that he doesn't pass it:
  • #1: "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". Apart from his own books I only found a foreword for one evangelist book[6] signed as a Senior Pastor, and another book where he is cited as one of the pastors that supported the author. Seems to fail it.
  • #2 "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". His "Prayer & Fasting" theory has some cites in books [7], all of them published by Xulon Press, a christian self-publishing company, and another book [8] in Destiny Image Publishers which is, hum, a Christian editorial with a purpose to strengthen the Word of God or something. I don't think that this passes #2
  • #3 "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." No reviews or books about him or his theories, so fail.
  • #4. "(...) (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) (...) had works in many significant libraries". Fails.
For WP:ACADEMIC, the only sources about his titles and awards are self-published, so I won't even attempt to analyze it.
For WP:POLITICIAN, we could only salvage #3 "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.". I could only find one independient news piece, the one in ghanadistricts.com.[9] The information in the conference presentations is given by the conferencer and, as we can see, it's often not checked at all for veracity or accuracy. Other sources seem to be press releases or regurgitations of press releases. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the premise of this delete view is incorrect. The article does not claim he is a king. To the extent that he is notable, it might be that he is notable for gaining notoriety for claiming to be a king (perhaps along with other activities). I agree that there are unacceptable sources out there (e.g. press releases), but the article now contains a few separate sources that meet WP:RS. If we're going to delete it, fine, but please let's at least do so on the basis of correct information/characterizations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the coverage of his work in charity and development in Ghana might be enough to scrape by WP:PEOPLE, so I changed to very weak keep. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These change over time, of course, but those are what I found. Not a notable author either, in my view. Delete ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant primary coverage - not notable. — Jake Wartenberg 03:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those above. Normally I'd list out all the reasons, but everything has been pretty well covered above. Lar in particular did well to show that there's not real notability here. Lara 03:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet... in the space of 24 hours the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors—searching for neutral, impartial sources and presenting facts without bias—have exposed what appears to be a charlatan. Seems a shame to just flush all this. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NOTSPECULATION but there may be a public service to be performed here. If not Wikipedia, then perhaps this collection of information can be entrusted to a responsible authority? --Whoosit (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Synthesis is "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Several sources explicitly call him charlatan. "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing". I'm quoting WP:SYN here. ;o) --Whoosit (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "have exposed" - that's synthesis. I'm quoting you. Not sure what the confusion here is... ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All this talk of "exposing" him as a "charlatan" is in this thread; it's not in the article. The article merely states what the press (particularly the Mexican press) has said about him without drawing any original conclusions. This AfD discussion may be synthesis, but the article isn't.--Chris Johnson (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor choice of word. I'll give you that. It was late. I apologize for opening up a tangent discussion. The real focus of this debate should be whether the subject has merit enough to stand on his own in an encyclopedia. However in asking the above question I had in mind that if we reports edit such as this to the FBI, then do we as a community not also have the responsibility to prevent the manipualtion of Wikipedia for apparent fraud/misrepresentation? It's worth pointing out that this article came to all of our attention as the result of this legal threat from someone claiming to represent the "king." The threat happened when an editor inserted a neutral reference to balance the biased POV article. It seems to me that our best defense against fraud and legal action is not to delete the subject in question, but to present in a ballanced, well sourced manner. However, AfD is not the place to debate the rights/responsibilities of Wikipedia. So on this tangent at least, I will respectfully shut up. --Whoosit (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, AfD is not the place to debate anything at all related to the proper application of BLP policy. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteYou have definitely been conned. I have contacted several Ghanaians in various parts of the world over the last few days and from what little is known, Fletcher is just a US preacher who has written a few books and uses Ghana as a platform for attempted political and social gain. Endless stories have surfaced on Modern Ghana and other news sites about his dalliances and deviances. Let us keep Wikipedia as legitimate as possible. Amazon and other sites list his published books so lets put him in the category of United States authors and leave it at that. If the page remains up, references to any kingship certainly need to come down as that point seems undeniably questionable. I did check other sources and the guy has a US passport. He is a preacher who visits Ghana once or twice a year. So much for ruling a kingdom. No need for further debate IMHO! Greatminds 99 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not solely on that basis, no, but not to worry, there are lots of good reasons why this article needs to go and no legitimate ones why it needs to remain. Was that a legitimate question? It strikes me, at first appearance, as more of the same trolling you've apparently been doing on WR. Appearances can be deceiving though, and I prefer to assume good faith. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cyclopia is considered to be trolling on WR by many readers there. It's a reasonable question (and far from incivil) to ask if that's what Cyclopia is doing here too, given the appearances. I found his question about the phone call unhelpful... the phone call is a quick way to determine if further research is warranted with less effort, nothing more. No one was claiming it was a reason for deletion on its own. Therefore the comment was constructive and your admonishment was out of order, IMHO. If you wish to discuss the matter further, you are invited to my talk page. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Whoosit, no problem anyway. Lar, yes, it was a legitimate question (maybe a bit snarky, I apologize). I can understand there can be other reasons for deletion, but taking into consideration stuff like "I called my friends and they said that" leaves me perplexed a lot anyway. If I gave impression of trolling, I apologize -trolling is most definitely not what I want. --Cyclopia - talk 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AS Lar says, there is no real in depth coverage to show notability. Kevin (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Initially I was going to argue delete, but it seems that there's sufficient non-trivial coverage to easily meet the GNG. The issues about whether or not he is a king are interesting, but not relevant - the coverage is sufficient to warrant inclusion. I still have a few misgivings about the content of the article, but they will need to be addressed elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - fails notability, even with the added sources - Alison ❤ 05:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The burden of proof is on those wanting to delete, even in BLP. Attempts to change it have never succeeded. The exception , which remains controversial, is " Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." Notice the "may"--even those who accept it as policy leave it to the discretion of the closer. In any case, it only applies when the subject has requested deletion, which is not the case here. (I cite from section 3.4 of WP:Deletion policy) DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned above, not enough quality sources to make the article doable. — Ched :  ?  02:01, 1 October 2009 (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/Kingsley_Fletcher&oldid=1137972518"