Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mostafa Mahmoud


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mostafa Mahmoud

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not establish the subject's notability, nor does it provide any references. All of my attempts to find references failed. This is not to say that they do not exist, but the subject's name is not uncommon and has many variants, making it impossible to determine which articles are associated with subject and which are not. This article is not linked to by articles, only by lists and project pages. Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article reads like an autobiography (use of first-person "he met El Aqqad, who used to give me a hand by reading my writings"). Google search on the name, and some of his works turns up only wikipedia mirrors and a single forum discussing the article. ~  Cr∞nium  04:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - First I'd like to thank "Cryptic" for posting the entry on wikiproject Egypt. I'm monitoring the project page and am responsible for any deletion entry or problems of Egypt related articles. About the Subject: The figure is well known throughout Egypt and the Arab world. I added his bibliography and will add lots of citations now. Thanks.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Excellent work! I'm glad you were able to find some off-line references. While searching through the history trying to determine Mahmud's correct DOB, I found this revision. It's written in the first person, meaning it was either written by Mahmud himself (WP:OR) or copied and pasted from somewhere (WP:COPYVIO). The other thing to keep in mind is that, when reading through that version, you'll see that much of the text is Mahmud describing his father, not himself. This distinction was warped and misconstrued over the years as editors changed instances of "my" to "his". Some of the content that's there now might have to be removed entirely. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A single source is used for the entire article! Jack1956 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The partial bibliography indicates notability. However, the tone of the article is far from neutral, and the only source given is the self-published autobiography on the subject's website. It is interesting to compare to the entry in the |en|%25D9%2585%25D9%2586%2520%25D8%25A3%25D9%2585%25D8%25B1%25D9%258A%25D9%2583%25D8%25A7%2520%25D8%25A5%25D9%2584%25D9%2589%2520%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25B4%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B7%25D8%25A6%2520%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25A2%25D8%25AE%25D8%25B1%2520%252F Arabic Wikipedia, which is considerably better but also lacks good references. It should not be difficult to find independent references (e.g. book reviews, newspaper or magazine articles) that back up the main elements of the article. The subjective content should be removed. I would be strongly tempted, assuming the decision is to keep the article, to delete almost all content other than the bibliography (e.g. trim down to perhaps a 1-paragraph outline) and ask that editors familiar with the subject expand with content backed up by independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment the article is a well done translation with no copyright issues of the original Arabic version. It isn't copied but has all the info of the arabic site. I don't see how this would be a copyvio in any way. Why would you delete all the contents but bibliography?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. I am not aware of any copyright issue. The problem is failure to give reliable independent sources. The only source given at present is the subject's autobiography, which by definition is not independent. The ISBN numbers in the bibliography are verifiable: the subject did indeed publish book XYZ. But a statement like "He was a pious man with a model character - exemplary behavior, patience, endurance, persistence and work." should be removed unless it can be shown to be based on a reliable independent source, or should be qualified to show possible bias as in "Mostafa Mahmoud states that he was a pious man with a model character ...". The Arabic Wikipedia article is better because it generally avoids subjective statements like this.


 * Encyclopedia articles should have a neutral tone and give information backed up by sources that can be presumed to be accurate and unbiased. With biographies of living people it is best to avoid assertions about their character and to focus on their notable public actions and achievements, letting the facts speak for themselves. A shorter, more neutral and fact-based article would be more useful to the general reader. I am sure there are good sources that would substantiate an article like this.  Readers can always go to the subject's books to get a more complete assessment of the individual. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree in the non neutral point of the article. But this can be easily fixed through the deletion of all non neutral sentences. Still this is no reason for deletion. This is a reason for copy editing. I therefore ask you to resolve the deletion request. Thank you--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The administrator closing this AfD will review the discussion and decide whether there is consensus to delete. At this stage, I think that deletion is unlikely. The subject seems to be a well-known and prolific author. But you would greatly strengthen the argument for retention if you could add some reliable, independent sources that confirm the content of the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Al Jazeera source cited in the article shows pretty clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There still needs to be a proper source. The present article says the entire bio section is take from the subject autobio. This is OK for uncontroversial facts. In this case, i think it is not acceptable as the sole source for the claim to notability as presented in the article. The other source  given is a special issue of al-Jazzira. T he link to it however goes to a translation of the arWikipedia page. Could someone please link to an English translation of the matgazine source. Phil, do you know what it says? DGG (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My fault - I have just fixed the link to point to the Al Jazeera article. It does seem to indicate notability. But the bulk of the article is still based on self-published material. It needs a serious overhaul. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The translated material there appears to be tributes from various people. I agree with you-- it would be much better if we had something specific. DGG (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2009 (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.