Template:Did you know nominations/Mandla Lamba

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Significant article issues remain unaddressed.

Mandla Lamba

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ALT0:... that fraudster Mandla Lamba rose to fame by passing himself off as a billionaire mining tycoon who owned gold, diamond and manganese mines in three different African countries? (claim to fame)
  • ALT1: ... that "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba hired three bodyguards in order to project a public image of extensive wealth, but failed to pay the security company for their services? (irony)
  • ALT2: ... that "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba lambasted journalists who wrote an exposé on him, accusing them of being part of a plot to harass and discredit him? (pun)
  • ALT3: ... that in 2010, future South African President Cyril Ramaphosa personally phoned in to a radio show to refute claims that he and his wife Tshepo Motsepe (both pictured) had mentored "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba? (unusual personal intervention)
  • ALT4: ... that "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba was called the "Black Economic Empowerment Houdini" by a South African news outlet for successfully evading arrest by the police? (nickname)
  • ALT5: ... that in October 2010, police in Johannesburg mistakenly arrested, then released "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba without realising that he was a wanted person? (surprising bungle)
  • ALT6: ... that in July 2021, "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba appeared on influencer Somizi Mhlongo's Instagram channel to promote his electric vehicle company, offering shares at a "special" 90% discount? (most recent high-profile activity)
  • ALT7: ... that South African banks Investec, Capitec and Absa have all refuted claims by "fake billionaire" Mandla Lamba of having business relationships with them? (modus operandi)
  • Reviewed: QPQ exempt (nom #2)
  • Comment: 5× (complete rewrite) over the course of 15~16 Jul 2022 in response to AfD discussion; outcome still pending. WP:BLPCRIME scrutiny welcomed.

Created/expanded by 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC).

• Thanks Mandarax for your help (yet again)! Re: MOS:SEAOFBLUE in ALT3 as pointed out in edit summary, it's a challenge as hook is already at the length limit. Will sleep on it and take a fresh look tomorrow; anyone else who wants to take a shot at rewording it is welcome to suggest ALT3a/b/c variations. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC) // Edit: just -wl President of South Africa; it's not that important. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • AfD closed as keep, ready for review. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Nice job saving this article! Recently expanded 5x, no copyvio and seems balanced. The sourcing might need a little work though. The article and several hooks cite Forbes Contributor article which isn't a reliable source. Can this be replaced with a more reliable source (the refs look good otherwise)? ALT0 seems the most interesting to me, but it's cited to a Forbes Contributor article. Striking ALT5 and ALT6 since they don't seem quite as interesting as the others. Re: ALT3 I'm not sure if running a photo of someone other than the person in the hook is ideal, but the hook itself is good. (Note: I also removed some overlinking from the hooks.) BuySomeApples (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, hello again BuySomeApples! I think the AfD was headed toward keep anyway (on the basis that sources exist) so can't really take credit for "saving" the article. TIL about FORBESCON being distinct from Forbes. Pretty sure almost if not everything in the article and hooks are backed up by other sources so if the rest of the sources are good then I'll just have to do a bit of inline citation rejiggling. Minor inconvenience since the Forbes source is a pretty good summary that touches on a lot of the key points, but no biggie. Re: hooks, I actually thought the police bungle was quite amusing; personally felt that the ALT2 pun was the weakest one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Re: photographs, I'd gone with the Ramaphosas because I wasn't sure how BLP comes into play here. Would BLP pose an obstacle to running a photo of Lamba himself on front page? I know this picture (from a deleted simple English article) is a no-go, but there's this and I do wonder if it would be worth the trouble trying to get it or some other photo released under a suitable license so we could run it. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • On second look, so I'll unstrike ALT5 it's a pretty great hook. I don't think running a photo with it would violate BLP per se, but it might not be worth the trouble since the photographer might not even release the photo anywhere. It's up to you though, since we can always wait to finish this nom for the photo. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
• Not so fast. There's a discussion at BLPN right now. Also, that image--Ramaphosa and Motsepe should NOT be pictured in this DYK hook, nor, I believe, should they be mentioned in it. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• @BuySomeApples and Drmies: It's been almost a month since the last comments here. Are there any updates on this nomination? The BLPN discussion also appears to have been archived. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • User:Narutolovehinata5, that image, which I will maintain violates BLP, is still in this nomination. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    • @Narutolovehinata5 and Drmies: I've taken out the image – it doesn't seem like there are any hooks that reference the people in the picture directly, so there's no real argument for keeping it. Plus, the nom doesn't seem to mind removing it from here, based on the BLPN discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
      • @Narutolovehinata5 and Drmies: Thank you for removing the picture! I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't agree with running the photo. The BLPN discussion has been archived and apparently the original complaints about it being a hitpiece were from sockpuppets. However, there was some edit warring on the page and it might need new eyes for neutrality since it's a BLP about someone accused of multiple crimes. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Drive-by comment: I am doubtful that either this article or any of its hooks can pass WP:DYKCRIT #4a "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals ... should be avoided". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• BlueMoonset, I think we've been doing this long enough, and now David Eppstein brought up another valid point. Let's just close this and move on. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I checked the article history, and couldn't help noting that the bulk of the nominator's edits were reverted along the way. I was also taken aback by the infobox, which has Mandla's occupation listed as "fraudster", which to me is indication enough that this article is problematic when it comes to neutrality, and the 4a issues David Eppstein notes are clear and prohibitive. Marking for closure per Drmies. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and David Eppstein: Just to clarify regarding articles related to people convicted of crimes: if their articles are almost entirely about the crimes they committed and their trial/conviction, would that still be considered an "undue focus about negative aspects of living people"? What about if the person is already deceased? I'm not asking about this specific nomination but rather in general, since we've sometimes had nominations about people convicted of crimes (both living and deceased) and their hooks focused on their crimes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess it hinges on the word "unduly". One might argue that this means that someone only known for crimes could still be listed, because the description of their crimes is not "undue". But in the case of Lamba, most of the article is unconfirmed allegations and their denials, not a suitable basis for a DYK hook or for featuring on DYK. There is a criminal conviction, for killing someone in a traffic accident, but that's not what the hooks and most of the article are about. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

References