Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Mahfouz


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ed Mahfouz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as an unsuccessful candidate in Canada's federal election of 2008, which relies almost entirely on primary sources and makes no claim of notability that would get him over WP:NPOL. For added bonus, if you go back to the article's original creation, the creating editor User:Unbiased observer234 says right in their own edit summary that the page was created by the subject's campaign, and then from there it devolved into an edit war over content that the campaign hadn't "approved" — and that edit war alone accounts for approximately two-thirds of this article's entire edit history over the entire six years since. So this was always a campaign brochure, posted by an editor with a conflict of interest, for a person who doesn't pass any of our inclusion standards in the first place. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 17:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 Delete - They don't really appear to be noteworthy past being in a single election and coming second (but not even a close second), which is hardly a foundation for an article. Plus the links are mostly junk: repeated links, several dead links, one has no mention of them, one has a minor mention of them. The article appears to have no real worth. KylieTastic (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.