Talk:Wafik Moustafa

File:Offical-photo-dr-wafik-moustafa.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Offical-photo-dr-wafik-moustafa.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Offical-photo-dr-wafik-moustafa.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

From Bias Free?

This article is written from one point of view with no third party objectivity. Given the prominence this person has in connection with the Baroness Warsi affair I think someone with external knowledge of Dr.Moustafa should re-write it. Paddycomeback (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The article has been written in a very amateur fashion, suggesting someone close to the subject was involved. I question whether it meets the criteria for inclusion. TrottieTrue (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree & have trimmed it. Pretty sure more can be removed. Not having much luck finding English-language sources which are independent of him other than in connection with the Warsi affair, which means he may fail WP:BLP1E. There are, however, numerous potential variant spellings of the name. - Sitush (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Note that a multitude of sources say that the Conservative Arab Network (which no longer exists) had nothing to do with the Conservative Party even though it (illegally?) used their branding. Eg: [1]. It seems that Moustafa is or was disowned by the party. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

[2] - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The British Arab Network appears to have turned up after the row. He is the sole director listed at Companies House & I can't find any news item mentioning the BAN which doesn't mention him. They are pretty much all potted intros for TV interview appearances, which makes me wonder if this is a house of cards. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Despite all the years BAN has been running, its website shows "coming soon" for things such as Executive Committee members. The only person named is the subject of this article, who gets a huge hyperbolic PR piece. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Former Patients

In all my previous experience I never had a doctor that was either:

• so brilliant he knew exactly what was wrong or not wrong with me just by looking
• so terrible he just wanted me out of the door to churn through the other patients
• so racist he just wasn't interested in dealing with certain patients

I guess I'll never know. Have switched doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.63.30 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What an interesting comment! TrottieTrue (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)