Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mahfouz Foundation

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mahfouz Foundation

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

Not notable organsiation. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. This is a declined AfC submission copied to mainspace anyway, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mahfouz Foundation. PROD removed without improvement to the article. See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mahfouz_Marei_Mubarak_bin_Mahfouz involving a similar set of references and editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources seem reliable and also looked on the Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz and do not see problems with similar references (because he is the founder). I think if The Mahfouz Foundation is sponsoring events in Pembroke College in Oxford and Prince Michael is the patron then I think more there will also be more reported about the Mahfouz Foundation. User talk:BenoitHoog 13:53 04 April 2014 (GMT+1)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [Before an administrator thinks I am being underhand, I am being investigated as a "sockpuppet" - however I will still add a comment as I removed the PROD in the first place]. If links have been forged with Pembroke College and the charity has established an annual event there, then I think that notability has been established, and will become known to the wider community (if not already).Ctfn (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And Ctfn was indeed blocked. BenoitHoog was indef-blocked as one of their socks. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NONPROFIT. Cited sources fail WP:RS. A Google turned up very little on the subject and nothing that came close to ringing the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete'. Not notable. There is no proper sourcing in the first place, and what there is does not prove it passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2014 (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.