Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamad Barakat

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.

Mohamad Barakat

Mohamad Barakat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable entity, rumoured to have provided steroids. If wikipedia allowed rumours, we would not be wikipedia any more. (I copy pasted this rationale from another XFD I have just created, of a cookie cutter article) 2Joules (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources have reported about him for many years. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reported the rumor, not reported him. 2Joules (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you don't understand the non-English sources. There is quite in-depth coverage about him in both German and Brazilian media, involving long interviews and investigation, not just rumors. How about informing yourself before starting petitions? Omikroergosum (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::I understand German well enough and Google helps with the brazilian papers. I did not nominate this on a whim. I have satisfied

If you understand the sources that clearly show your claims are wrong, it is not just rumors, why do you spread lies (only rumours, and below "sources not reliable"...) before even trying to communicate with editors who know about the subject? Omikroergosum (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not established aside from his alleged involvement with doping. Citing
  WP:PERP: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Count Count (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Doping is not only relevant as a crime but, especially in Brazil, where he is high society celebrity, as a part of lifestyle. Omikroergosum (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An official investigation is underway according to various sources. Count Count (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that makes him less notable? There is a also an official investigation underway concerning Donald Trump... Omikroergosum (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but an article can wait until he is convicted. Also the comparison to Trump falls flat. Trump is of course notable even without the investigation. Count Count (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, notable not as a criminal but as a prominent person in Brazil about whose controversial practices media report internationally, independently of conviction. Eufemiano Fuentes also still has an article after acquittal, it's relevant no matter whether it's legally a crime what they did/do. Omikroergosum (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say he is notable not as a criminal but as a prominent person in Brazil but this is not properly expressed in the article at all. Once that is expressed with

due weight I am willing to reevaluate. --Count Count (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I added his book publication and two of his many interviews as sources to show he is a prominent figure in Brazil. A google search shows many more. Omikroergosum (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::@User:Omikroergosum The first 5-6 pages of the search have no reliable sources. I'm afraid this does not have any bearing on the AFD debate. Might I suggest that you improve other areas of wikipedia instead of participating in AFD from the very start? 2Joules (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that you cannot find reliable sources when I used several of them for the article. It was you who started the AfD, for which I see absolutely no reason after it is established he published a book and is mentioned and in some cases portrayed in depth in dozens of reliable sources internationally. Interesting that you are concerned with the contributions of a user who has edited here for more than twice as long as you have, when you in the few months since your start already attracted a sockpuppet investigation, accusations of paid editing, and four denied speedy deletions on your talk page (plus several others in the past)... Omikroergosum (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Omikroergosum An account like yours that has substantial edits only in one article, and comments a lot to keep that article online, is called a single purpose account. SPA's are encouraged to spend their time editing other areas, like main space articles, instead of spending all of their time in a single AFD debate. It allows others to assume good faith. At present, you have only 150 or so edits. Mostly on this article and its AFD, so I encourage you to edit in other areas, especially articles. SPA's that refuse to edit anything but one article may come under suspicion of paid editing and conflict of interest. 2Joules (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only started editing on that article three days ago and only edit it so much because there is resistance to it. As you can easily see in my contributions I have edited on a variety of topics since December. Why do you whose account started in March accuse others of your own wrongdoing? Omikroergosum (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Switching to Weak keep after the changes to the article. He seems to be famous in Brazil and his celebrity status plus the scandals generate just enough notability IMHO. --Count Count (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2018 (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.