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 keep. Tone 09:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Mohamad Fakih

Mohamad Fakih (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being a privately held company, where the claims about the company are being made cannot be verified you cannot take at face value much of the information is correct or highly accurate. Blogs, Twitter or Facebook entries, web page updates are the place to promote the business he owns. It is extremely rare to see pages about other privately owned companies senior executives because there is no value to it other than to promote the individual. The page about the subject only holds up as a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeProperties ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 27. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Another paid PR piece. Non-notable, needs to be deleted. Skirts89 ( talk) 17:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Not sure. Looks like undeclared paid editing product. Sources are not so bad but they do not look to meet notability requirements. Not terribly bad as promotion, there is more about his philanthropy than trying to promote the food company. If notable, he should be mentioned at Quebec City mosque shooting and Paramount Fine Foods. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Without even reading the article, I know Fakih is the founder of Paramount Fine Foods, and is known for his philanthropy and aid to immigrants to Canada. I still get my news via dead tree, and my recollection is that that there is at least one profile piece that I've read about him. I am not expressing a "keep" yet because I understand that my personal recollection that there are sources is not the same as actually producing them, ut it might take me a bit to dig them up. I should have access to the newspaper archives for the newspaper I am subscribed to, for checking. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This Toronto Star article is already a reference in the article. It is a substantial write-up specifically about Fakih. This Toronto Star article from 2012 is another substantial piece about Fakih. This Globe and Mail article is about Paramount Fine Foods, but includes substantial info written about Fakih. Ther is also this Finacial Post article about Fakih. This represents substantial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources with which to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Whpq ( talk) 01:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Interesting case with set of four sources, all of which I would call non-independent as they are write ups based on the writers interviewing the subject, as I argue here: [ [1]]. These four sources contain no third party sourcing. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • The virtue of the interviews being conducted by Toronto Star and others makes them third party sources. The question is if these are only primary sources but at least the Globe and Mail contains secondary considerations (discussions with independent people not affiliated with the man or chain). Add the coverage of the defamation and his charity work, and GNG for BLP is clearly met. -- Masem ( t) 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I can see your point, but these articles are not from minor news sources. The Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail are major Canadian newspapers. That their editors have made an editorial decision that Fakih is worth covering (i.e., is worthy of note). These are not straight interview pieces, and I expect that the reporters on these assignments did do their fact checking. So I'd agree that using a quote from Fakih from one of these articles as a reference to verify a specific claim in the article would be problematic, from the point of view of notability, the decision to write an article about Fakih does establish notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Borderline keep . Of course there is nothing special to write about it, but a chain of 80 restaurants surely is an achievement of note. Staszek Lem ( talk) 02:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Whpq, even if I disagree that the sources meet the GNG. The GNG is not absolute in our decisions to keep or delete articles. I am influenced by the public causes, and the lack of blatant commercial publicity. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply

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.