Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gomaa

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gomaa

Unless somebody can prove this article's worth and salvage it, it would not seem to be an important topic and should be deleted. Also, the person seems to have created it for themself and it does not seem to be worth fixing and maintaining such an unimportant article. queso man 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've been convinced to withdraw my nomination - if I can, that is. But it still has to be cleaned up and moved --queso man 16:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Look at it! Danny Lilithborne 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to No Vote until something resembling an article can be created. Danny Lilithborne 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a google search of "Gomaa Frahat" returns nothing, and "Gomaa Farhat" only returns 26 hits, none of them particularly impressive. Delete per WP:BIO. --Daniel Olsen 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Unless a decent source emerges. Appears to be a cartoonist for "the second oldest daily newspaper in the Arab world" (Al-Ahram). However, meaningful information about him in english does seem to be nonexistant though... not sure what we'd base an article on, or where the creator of this article got his information. Move to Gomaa Farhat if kept. --W.marsh 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. Try Googling him under the spelling "Gomaa Farahat", which gets a few relevant hits. [1] I made a partial attempt to clean up the article but we need verification of the content. --Metropolitan90 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment per Metropolitan90, the article may have notability. Ye gods, this was painful to get through - the subject's name is apparently misspelled. I got only 26 Ghits from "gomaa farhat" not "frahat", and of those 14 are distinct. BUT, his editorial cartoons have apparently gotten printed in the Los Angeles Times per this boycott site, so if this is correct he's internationally syndicated. Farhat is also cited in this French "Arabs Against Discrimination" website. I think we need someone better in tune with the Mideast (or the L.A. Times) to give us some background on this guy. Tychocat 10:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment French "Arabs Against Discrimination" article is but a public petition to world public opinion. Ohconfucius
• I'm aware of what the article is, the point I was trying to make is that it appears from the boycott site that Farhat/Farahat is internationally published as an editorial cartoonist. If this is true, and we still need confirmation on this, then it'd be an indicator for notability. Tychocat 04:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Tychocat. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tychocat, WP:BIAS etc. While unverified, the article seems to make a fine case for notability. This site seems helpful. Move to Gomaa Farahat, apparently his full name. Flag for attention from someone familiar with editorial cartoons in Arabic. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability requirements aren't waived just because someone is from a non-english speaking country. --W.marsh 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. At first I couldn't even tell from the article that it was about a person. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not really notable. Also, if the article is kept, it needs a complete rewrite, and with lack of source, how can that be done. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Seems notable on the surface. Agreed that there may be systematic bias. As he has apparently been published in 120 American newspapers, including Herald Tribune International, English Times, El Luvracion and the Canadian Garette, we should be able to verify easily. Gsearch for Gomaa cartoonist produces the most relevant hits, which he shares with Pakistani cartoonist Ali Gomaa. A NYTimes search gave one hit here for Goma Farahat, but I cannot view the whole article. Searching the NYT photos and graphics library under "Gomaa" reveals 81 cartoons by the artist, Daryl Cagle is familiar with his work, and has a page on his website dedicated to his work, which at least proves the subject is known outside of Egypt. The appearances of his work in newspapers, and his awards remains to be proven. Seems that there is no need to move the article as he draws under the name of "Gomaa". Additional comment: There may be errors in publication names: Canadian Garette noGhits, Canadian Gazette is a govt publication which is unlikely to carry cartoons; no ghits for "Luvracion". The article has been tidied up and links added. Ohconfucius 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough. Must avoid systemic bias. :) Dlohcierekim 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable enough.--Kitrus 12:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough. bbx 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as an internationally syndicated cartoonist, this person meets WP:BIO from what I can tell. RFerreira 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:V, and WP:NOR. While I am flattered people conceded my research, I thought I had made it clear that verification and documentation was still required. I delayed my nom in hopes someone more versed in these things could produce verification. Oh well. The fact Gomaa "seems" notable enough ignores these points very severely. The Cagle website, while very suggestive, does not definitely establish he is actually published internationally, rather than just being pushed around editors' desks. No one has shown he's been published in either the L.A. or N.Y. Times, despite the hints and implications. This is supposed to be a scholarly work, not gossip, and if the documentation isn't there, I can't support a keep nom. 15:32, 6 September 2006 (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.