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. The consensus of policy based arguments is to delete; the sources are inadequate and the accumulation of trivial content in the article gives the impression of promotionalism. The manner of rec-recreation under an alternate spelling is not encouraging, & I'm consequently going to protect both spellings against re-creation DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moad Gouzrou (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)

Subject doesn't meet notability criteria & WP:COI.

Article has been created by the subject himself with clear promotional intent; in yet another attempt to have his name on wikipedia [1]

No substantial coverage in media; only anecdotal references for this newbie freelance web writer, should be a speedy really. Tachfin (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Wikipedia guidelines are respected including clear secondary sources. That's not to say that the article was initially approved by Wikipedia administrators themselves. Thank you ! --Wikifan115 (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A journalist and radio producer of the first order, with many years of important responsibilities on a national network. No reason to delete the article (but to improve it, though). --41.141.203.229 (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mouad, can you refrain from voting here like you did before? WP:COI thanks --Tachfin (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't yet looked into notability, but must point out that the "youngest Moroccan journalist" claim is incapable of being substantiated, whatever tabloid headline writers might say. There is no generally accepted definition of "journalist", and I'm sure that no reliable source keeps a list of all journalists and their dates of birth to allow us to check that there is no younger journalist. It is also implausible that nobody born after 1993 has written articles for publication in Morocco. I removed this claim from the article with an explanation but was reverted without explanation by Wikifan115. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: I can't see where is the COI, can anyone argue ? Does the initial administrators who accepted the article not aware of Wikipedia guidelines ? --41.251.8.195 (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can see nothing that indicates notability either in the article or in any sources that I can find under either spelling of the name. It would appear that the sources cited in the article are in similar vein to this one, posted on a potentially reliable site by the subject himself, and containing the disclaimer "post non vérifié par la rédaction". I would also note that User:Wikifan115 attempted to close this discussion as "keep" despite obviously being involved, so we need to beware further disruption here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - To be a journalist, doesn't he need to have articles in some kind of edited publication? I don't see any, and also the article is very subjective and would need to be rewritten with just the facts. I can read French, but there were still references I couldn't check. Those I read don't seem very reliable or informative, but if someone can point out some coverage that I missed I will change my vote. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : To be objective, I am convinced that this page just needs to be kept, improved, and tagged (as an extreme measure) as a COI. To answer User:Phil Bridger, what I did was a mistake as I read "result=keep))" in the source of the page. What do you think ? --Wikifan115 (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer not to say what I think about your behaviour, and you would probably prefer that too. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was involuntary as you can read in my comment :) --Wikifan115 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can read in your comment that you make the patently implausible claim that it was involuntary. Please follow the first law of holes. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan115 also removed a G4 template rather than wait for an administrator to perform a review. Crtew (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikifan115 and Phil Bridger, please stop bilateral discussions - Although the article should be more wikified, the subject is clearly notable per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources already mentioned and others I found here, here, and here. --41.141.223.146 (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blog and forum posts are not reliable independent sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree - a wordpress site, a blog and a wiki - and none of them have the name of a journalist who has written the article. Can anyone point to an article that Mr. Gouzrou has written which has been submitted to an editor, accepted and then published? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that he worked for Come4news, HERE is an article which he submitted and got published there. We may add this collaboration to his Wikipedia page. --Wikifan115 (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That site boasts that it has 11872 reporters, and its conditions of use say, "Come4News SARL ne peut pas être tenu pour responsable du contenu mis en ligne par les internautes" (Come4News SARL cannot be held responsible for content posted by Internet users), i.e. it does not exercise editorial control. Publishing there no more indicates that the subject is a journalist than would posting on Twitter. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It does exercise editorial control and not all submited articles are published. --Wikifan115 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Speedy Delete per G4 Delete: This article fails on several basic issues. First, not enough quality sources exist to support the claims. The lack of edited publications written by the subject is also problematic. Second, the article fails both WP:GNG and the more specific WP:ANYBIO or WP:Journalist. One web award does not make the person notable. And I tend to agree with User:Phil Bridger on the plausibility of references for "youngest". Third, the article does not describe or point to any works of notable journalism.Crtew (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One: If there is clear evidence of a WP:COI here, in the previous AfD, or in the article, then that evidence should be presented. Otherwise, such claims should be dropped or dismissed. The same interested IP addresses across the board is circumstantial, and I'm a skeptic.Crtew (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two: I am confused about why this is not listed as the second nomination for AfD. Is this a mistake? Am I missing something in the history? Crtew (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was already deleted once. Notice the spelling of the first name:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouad Gouzrou
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moad Gouzrou

Is this grounds for a speedy delete? Crtew (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a request for undeletion in this case? I can't find one in the archive. Crtew (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a G4. I think an administrator should review this article's history to ascertain exactly why it has been deleted three times prior to this AfD (under the title "Mouad Gouzrou" with a "u" in Moad) and why it has been recreated/restored as "Moad" and by whom. [2] Crtew (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The G4 request was turned down by an admin since additional changes have been made. The deletion log, however, should be reprinted here in this debate since most of us cannot see the earlier versions of the article and decide for ourselves. I would point out two things: 1) This is not the first G4 event in this article's history (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) and 2) even if the article has additional content, the basic issues that have been raised in the past still exist now.Crtew (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

22:13, 24 May 2012 User:Michael Greiner deleted page Mouad Gouzrou (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person) (TW))

17:43, 4 August 2011 User:Alexf deleted page Mouad Gouzrou (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouad Gouzrou)

01:23, 22 June 2011 User:Ron Ritzman deleted page Mouad Gouzrou (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mouad Gouzrou)

• Comment : I agree with Crtew that there is currently no clear evidence of WP:COI and nothing tells clearly that the subject wrote the article for himself. I also join User:41.251.8.195 and want an answer as well for his question : why the administrators who approved the article in AfC didn't have the same arguments as in this debate ? Aren't the secondary sources by TV and Radio channels enough ? If the journalist is a radio producer, then how can his works be presented ? I just want things to be clear on my mind so we reach a consensus as soon as possible so please answer my questions. --Wikifan115 (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was not approved by administrators, but by one editor who is not an administrator. We all make the occasional mistake, and the point of having a discussion here is to decide whether accepting this article was a mistake. And no, the sources cited in the article and in this discussion are not enough, because they are not reliable and independent, as has already been explained several times above. Phil Bridger (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A noted journalist as per coverage in independent secondary sources, and an important, strong voice for moderation in the Middle East. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Which sources are you basing that opinion on? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : I found an arabic secondary source from a well-know website (http://arabic.moroccoworldnews.com/?p=31216). I hope that an administrator will evaluate it. --Wikifan115 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This source was not yet published when this discussion began - —Anne Delong (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The published secondary source article cited parrots what is said in the Wikipedia article and even mentions the Wikipedia article like an echo chamber. While the article does mention his age, it does not mention anything new that would change my mind, such as why he is a significant journalist or what important works of journalism he has published. The award by a public vote is bogus and is not a vetted award. I find nothing in the published piece that makes this subject encyclopedia worthy. Crtew (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The listing above assigns this AfD to three discussion areas (Authors, Africa and News), but if you open all three categories and look for this discussion, it is not appearing. Something happened with the listing to the areas during this discussion, which is probably why nobody new is joining. Crtew (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed deletion sorting. Per the revision page for the AfD discussion (here), a user closed the AfD discussion on August 1, 2013, so the AnomieBOT removed the listings at the delete sort pages. Another user reverted the close, hence reopening the discussion, so the delete sorts had to be replaced manually. I've manually re-added the AfD discussion to the following delete sort pages:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News

 – Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:39, 6 August 2013 (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.