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.

The result was delete. Lack of notability, plus WP:BLP concerns. RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Mohamad Barakat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 personal attacks against other editors on this page will be blocked from editing at least until the discussion concludes. I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete As a non-notable private individual as defined by WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Jbh  Talk  14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Jbh  Talk  14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  Jbh  Talk  14:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 WP:BLPCRIME violations, or a meaningless microstub … Nobody has a problem with someone writing a biography of this guy, but none of the people arguing over this appear to have the slightest interest in doing so.; if someone want to write a BLP-compliant biography I have no issue with that being kept, but it's abundantly clear that neither of the two people who say they think the initial deletion was inappropriate have any intention of doing so. &#8209; Iridescent 14:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 bureaucratic if and when someone ever does want to write a compliant article. &#8209; Iridescent 17:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 *  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: This was also reported by quality media in Swedish,(Expressen ) Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang  and a Polish sports paper, Omikroergosum (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I will not work on this any more as I find the repeated and unsanctioned abuse of administrative rights to circumvent this deletion discussion, which is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia rules on draftification, including the blanking of the page now, the repeated untrue claims, the lack of punishment for the single purpose vandals who inserted Portuguese advertisements, and this highly tendentious nomination who seems to be misled by the countless wrong claims just scandalous.
 * I invite you to reflect on whether you can be proud about what you are doing, and invite those that already voted to reconsider in view of a more comprehensive picture of the case, even though a real informed decision cannot be taken anyway over an article that is blanked.Omikroergosum (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I said in the opening to this discussion that I was going to block anyone making personal attacks in this discussion. You've again accused specific administrators of abusive conduct despite having been repeatedly told to knock it off. Retract your personal attacks immediately. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is decided to be a "personal attack" here to point out that, to the umpteenth time, Wikipedia rules explicitly say a draftification is not acceptable to circumvent a deletion discussion I will not be part of this project any longer. Good bye.Omikroergosum (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:LOWPROFILE doesn't apply in terms of WP:BLP considerations (he actively promotes himself = he is not low-profile) but doesn't lend itself to notability specifically. Who he's treated is irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED), and if the court case confers notability it's not because his opponent is famous (also NOTINHERITED). Coverage of his inadvertent sex tape is the sort of thing 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 balanced article - it's just going to be a 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)


 * , this AfD does not qualify for speedy keep. Per Speedy_keep, the only valid reasons for speedy keep are:
 * nominator withdraws or does not an argument for deletion (failed, the nomination is open and the nominator specified several reasons)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * banned nominator (pretty sure Ivanvector isn't currently banned)
 * page is a policy or guideline (nope)
 * 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. creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was not aware of wikipedia speedy keep slang. Change it to strong keep then. In the previous deletion decision the legitimate user who first supported the sockpuppet nominator changed his vote from delete to keep because I convinced him that the article is not about an alleged criminal but about someone accused of questionable practices by a famous singer and two investigative journalists, one international. Ivanvector, no one ever said he inherited notability. He clearly has Notability according to the rules that are so happily ignored here via numerous reliable secondary sources with in depth coverage of him. He was involved in several events: nationally widely reported publishing activities, internationally widely reported doping revelations, a nationally widely reported lost case to a famous singer, nationally widely reported treatment of a Grammy Award Winner, and many of these reports have in depth coverage of him, not of her, which shows how much of a celebrity he himself is in Brazil. Just came here to save the international sources to the German version. Won't come back, no matter what "arguments" you come up with next. Omikroergosum (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Omikroergosum, I'm not sure why you think being the doctor to an award winner conveys notability. It doesn't. Neither does being a celebrity's personal assistant, dog walker, hair stylist, personal trainer or coach. Just coming into the sphere of a famous person doesn't make a person notable. He needs to have accomplished something more than having popular social media accounts. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:NOTABILITY at this time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete we are not a tabloid and do not engage in sensationalistic coverage. At this time we have too many editors who are pressing for things, and we need to use restraint and keep this article out. Being an attack article is reason to delete articles on people who clearly pass notability guidelines. In this case a clear pass does not even exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete .Fails WP:BLP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. It veers between hagiography and hatchet job, and there are insufficient neutral biographiucal sources for a proper article. Guy (help!) 20:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete (formalizing a comment I made earlier) - I was holding out hope that the creator would be able to provide a broader spectrum of neutral sources (other than just on the doping allegations) but they've decided to ragequit instead. I've not come across anything better myself, so I have no other choice but to recommend deletion. If someone wants to create a properly sourced and balanced biography they should start from scratch. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * DeleteLots of trivia and gossip, not a lot of meat. Mentions of celebrities in an apparent attempt to pull in notability, but notability is not inherited.  Refs aren't enough to show WP:GNG is met for this person.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete sources do not support notability for this as a biography. It seems to be gossip, celebrity association, social media performance and other trivia. Nothing really impactful. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2019 (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.