Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz

In this article, we will explore a variety of aspects related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, from its origins to its current impact on society. We will analyze its evolution over time, as well as its relevance in the current context. In addition, we will examine the different perspectives and opinions that exist around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, with the aim of offering a comprehensive vision that allows us to understand its true meaning. Through this in-depth analysis, we seek to give the reader a broader and more complete understanding of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, addressing all the relevant aspects that encompass this topic.
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. Note that whether or not the organisations used as references are themselves notable is not really relevant. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz

Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz (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)

Not notable person. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the independent sources has in depth coverage. No native-language wiki article to poach refs from. Article built almost entirely by SPAs. PROD removed by @ErraticallyIntelligent:, so move to AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep - The article in question has been referenced using as many independent sources as possible - which include: the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, the British Forces Foundation and Burke's Peerage all of which are considered notable organisations (by Wikipedia's standard or otherwise). Whilst notability is not through mere association, one must consider whether: a)Oxford or Cambridge would be granting honours to an individual who is of no note? b)A charity as well known as The British Forces Foundation would appoint as Vice President an individual who is of no note? c)Burke's Peerage would allow the creation of a record (note: the record appears to be a newly created record NOT just a small entry into an existing record) of an individual who is of no note? Therefore the individual, especially as he is being recognised by the above institutions, is notable enough to have a wikipedia article written on him. Ctfn 20:54, 02 April 2014 (BST)

(a) the coverage isn't from the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge, it from colleges associated with those institutions (but legally completely separate), colleges which are notoriously cash-poor (b) I'd never heard of the The British Forces Foundation until I read this article (c) Burke's Peerage website contact page has a suspicious comment about 'paid research'; I believe they've changed their business model recently? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
In response to the comments above:
a) cash-poor or not, they are still very careful in what they promote - Oxford and Cambridge are (arguably) Britain's top two academic institutions, with a world reputation - and their constituent colleges (whilst separate entities) must still "toe the line" with regards to how they conduct themselves. They are not merely "associated" with the University, but are part of the University itself (no different to Trinity, Clare, Jesus etc. or any other Oxbridge college). My point - the colleges are still well known institutions and (for whatever reason) they have felt fit to recognise the individual of the article and furthermore they have not "tucked him away" but made mention of him on their website and written material. It is also quite clear that the sources were produced by the colleges themselves. If there is enough notability for them, then why not Wikipedia?
b) Just because you have not heard of The British Forces Foundation does not undermine its notability. Indeed it has its own Wikipedia page, which does not appear to have been rejected or deleted (my argument being that, I assume, The British Forces Foundation has passed its own test of notability). Besides, whether or not it is found on Wikipedia, it has received coverage in the British Press, has had associations with a number of celebrities and is a charity probably most familiar to members of the British Armed Forces. (As an aside, the following YouTube link - which whilst it is a promotional video by the charity - should highlight that The British Forces Foundation is not some unknown charity ). Again, my point, the individual is not just associated with the organisation (which I hope I have argued is one of note) - he has been appointed as a Vice President (reference to which has been included in the article).
c) Burke's Peerage do appear to offer a paid research service, but from what I gather entry on their records is still rather strict (I also believe this is something they have offered for quite a while - and is more to do with "we need to prove that you are who you claim to be").Ctfn 11:37, 3 April 2014 (BST)

*Keep - The sources seem good. It looks like he has been noticed by a quite a few organisations (some big, some small). He is also a CEO in Saudi, so surely he should be included as there is a category in Wikipedia of . User talk:BenoitHoog 14:09 04 April 2014 (GMT+1)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 03:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is little corroborating information on the web. The term "His Excellency" appears fanciful as it is reserved for the House of Saud, or for those holding senior governmental position - not for any other person. The entire article leaves one feeling that "on the 7th day he rested". If an individual makes charitable contributions to private or public companies and institutions, whether in return for a title or for altruistic reasons, I would imagine that should not automatically make them a person of note. Lonscribe (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Lonscribe appears to be an SPA as well with no contributions besides this discussion. Valoem talk contrib 16:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments -
a) The use of 'His Excellency' (HE) is by way of the GCMLJ - which is a Knight Grand Cross of Merit from The Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem. Regarding members of the House of Saud - senior members would actually be referred to as 'His Royal Highness' (HRH) , junior members 'His Highness' (HH). I believe that the father (who is a Sheikh) would also be entitled to also use HE.
b) To answer the "on the 7th day he rested" the following reference show him contributing (recently) to St John of Jerusalem Eye Hospital: . However, I've not added it to the article as it is merely mention of a contribution.
c) With regards to Lonscribe's comment: If an individual makes charitable contributions to private or public companies and institutions, whether in return for a title or for altruistic reasons, I would imagine that should not automatically make them a person of note. - I would agree with that to some extent BUT if the title or honour is considered noteworthy within a respected and fairly public organisation, then I would argue that there must be an element of notability. I have used the British Forces Foundation as an example in a previous comment, but he has been (and judging by his charity's website - is still being) honoured with positions of respect within other organisations (in fact the GCMLJ is another good example). Famous, definitely not - but I would still argue for his notability.
Ctfn (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments -
Reconfirm Delete
a) In fact there are other sources (such as that on Wikipedia referring to Faisal of Saudi Arabia) that clarify how the term "His Excellency" is reserved solely for members of the Saudi Royal lineage (or senior government officials when holding office), not businessmen, sheikhs or philanthropists etc and certainly not their offspring. In the same way that a British citizen outside of the royal family would never be referred to in English as “HRH”, the term “HE” would never be used to refer inappropriately to someone in Arabic. One notable omission of the article is that this family reputedly originates from Yemen (not of Saudi descent) so could never qualify. The fact that the term "His Excellency" is used inappropriately, reinforces the notion that this is not a suitable article for Wikipedia.
b) I only came across this article during some tangential research. The reason it stuck out compared to other articles on notable persons from the Middle East is that there are no independent, reliable sources of note, it looks "commissioned" and quite self-promotional in comparison. I have no problem with that in principle but as a part-time researcher, the context of an article is paramount so would expect to see such an article on Facebook or a private website, leaving Wikipedia undiluted and largely independent.
c) Yes I see the argument and agree that non-famous people can still be notable. However, that is not the case with this article. There are literally thousands of other Middle Eastern family members of large businesses that do not qualify for Wikipedia (correctly in my view) despite having names associated with global charities and institutions. This article would fall into that category in my humble opinion.
Lonscribe (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Struck the duplicate delete !vote above. Only one !vote is allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica1000 03:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I think the awards and honors section here provides enough notability to push him over the edge. Some of the sources here in the article don't really contribute to his personal notability, but I think there's just enough evidence here to make a case for him being notable. Ducknish (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Reconfirm Delete. After some more careful scrutiny, the article appears far more suitable for a social media site, and would otherwise dilute Wikipedia. Detailed reasoning above.
Struck what appears to be a duplicate !vote in this unsigned entry. NorthAmerica1000 03:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I did not find anything in the biography to suggest he may be an Excellency (or “صاحب سعادة “ in Arabic), which to the best of my knowledge, needs one to be holding certain official positions, none of which seem to have been quoted in the said article. The article looks like it was put together by an editorial team. It is this kind of article that gives the otherwise wonderful Wikipedia site a bad reputation — EARK123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (comment moved from top of page)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanispampuffery of the worst kind. Sourcing is atrocious, and I do not think that such peerages and "academic" honors (I'll phrase this delicately) confer notability. In the meantime, I'm going to prune the article some, beginning with the portrait gallery of his royal highness. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence that he's actually done anything noteworthy. Elassint Hi 17:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, this appears to be a violation of WP:PROMO and WP:VANITY, Drmies actually cleaned the article to the point where I could not tell right off bat. However, further research of the editor who created the article appears to be based on WP:NOTHERE. I could not find any third party RS either. Valoem talk contrib 22:13, 30 April 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.
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia