Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamad Barakat (2nd nomination)

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)

Contested speedy deletion; please see this AN discussion for background. tl;dr: it is suggested that this individual is not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, and that the article is either (or both) unacceptably promotional and/or unacceptably negative in tone.

I have restored the article to its original location and blanked it as a courtesy, on behalf of the AN discussion. The article is protected so it cannot be restored while this discussion is open. Please keep comments on the subject of the article; editors making

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a non-notable private individual as defined by
  WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No prejudice against recreation in draft but the article as it stands is not acceptable in main space. See my reasoning here. Also, I believe
  WP:DRV would have been a more proper venue for this discussion since the prior AfD was a procedural close so the CSD was not out of process. (Per this I get why it was done this way.) If someone writes a policy compliant version then I will revisit my !vote. Jbh ^Talk 14:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Last edited: 14:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Consists mainly of trivia. I do not see a claim of notability, only one of short-lived notoriety. Deb (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously, and a trout to the nominator for restoring a blatantly policy-violating article—regardless of whether it's courtesy-blanked or not—purely for the sake of a pointless piece of process-for-the-sake-of-process. Per my previous comment every single version is either blatant advertising, a laundry-list of insults and
  Iridescent 14:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'd just make the point that a "pointless piece of process-for-the-sake-of-process" can have its advantages. Once this discussion is complete - assuming the result is "delete" - the article is likely to stay deleted. Deb (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which isn't necessarily a good thing. The issue here isn't whether the subject is notable—he probably is—but that both those who want to keep it want to keep it as an attack page. AfD is great for setting a precedent that a topic shouldn't be covered, but this is a situation where we don't necessarily want to set a "no article of this title may ever be created" precedent; taking it to AfD not only creates a bureaucratic exercise now, but a second bureaucratic if and when someone ever does want to write a compliant article. ‑ 
      Iridescent 17:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Not really; see Jbhunley's "no prejudice" comment. This discussion can decide to trash the existing article but allow creation of another, or it can decide to maintain the history but correct it (not my preference), or it can decide that this person should not be included at this time. Only in the last case would someone need to put in more work to demonstrate notability in the future, and they can do that just by creating a new article if/when the situation changes.
        WP:ALLARGUMENTS applies, well, sort of. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Speedy keep, obviously, as in the previous decision which so far has not been mentioned here. There were 17 high quality reliable secondary sources in the article, many of which have in-depth coverage of the person, who made the news even internationally as a celebrity doctor with two well selling books and countless appearances in the Brazilian media, more than a million Instagram followers, treating a Latin Grammy Award Winner who says she lost many kilos due to his treatment, soccer world stars, getting caught by investigative journalists to easily prescribe dangerous doping medication to healthy individuals and losing a defamation case at court to a famous Brazilian singer who says his health got severely damaged from treatment with steroids. Also cf. the German version of this article. The Brazilian sources can be found there. A source in English is here: [1] This was also reported by quality media in Swedish,(Expressen [2]) Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang [3] and a Polish sports paper,[4] Omikroergosum (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous "speedy keep" discussion was closed because it was created by a sockpuppet out of process. In other words it wasn't a discussion and the "keep" result was more of a "procedural close". Essentially that discussion can't be said to have decided anything. As for the comment: international coverage is compelling, and his media activity suggests that

WP:BLP1E

protects against. All of these things are in fact covered in the dewiki article, with sources, but Omikroergosum also wrote that article, so the fact it exists is also irrelevant.

Overall I think this is a "not yet" situation. I think that notability is satisfied, but based on the available sources (or those that have been presented) we cannot write a proper

WP:COATRACK for allegations of wrongdoing. I'm holding out for more biographical sources to improve the balance, but at the moment I am strongly leaning delete. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Omikroergosum, this AfD does not qualify for speedy keep. Per Wikipedia:Speedy_keep, the only valid reasons for speedy keep are:

  1. nominator withdraws or does not an argument for deletion (failed, the nomination is open and the nominator specified several reasons)
  2. nomination was made for the purpose of vandalism and no uninvolved editor has recommended delete (you're going to need to be extremely convincing to claim that Ivanvector is being a vandal here, and I count two !votes here from people uninvolved in the original draftification)
  3. nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the page in question (I've read the page, and their proposed deletion criteria do fit, though which one applies will vary depending on which version of the page you look at)
  4. banned nominator (pretty sure Ivanvector isn't currently banned)
  5. page is a policy or guideline (nope)
  6. page is linked from the main page (also nope)

  A keep !vote is fine, but this is not eligible for speedy keep. As several people have pointed out, the previous AfD was closed as speedy keep under criteria 4, and was only a procedural close rather than representative of a consensus, so re-nominating it is entirely valid in this case. Finally, per the linked page on speedy keep: be aware that the speedy keep criteria, particularly the first three, are not to be used to express strong disapproval of the nomination: a rationale that you don't agree with is still an argument for deletion, is not necessarily vexatious, and does not imply the nominator has neglected to read the page.

  talk to the boss) 20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]