Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed[edit]

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

Non notable individual. Article is of no encyclopedic value. Read this bit from a notable news source:

"Elhassan, a native of the Sudan who is now an American citizen, likes to call himself a sheik. He wears a cleric’s flowing white robes and claims hundreds of followers throughout Egypt, Sudan and in the United States. But he is unknown as a scholar or holy man in the state he has called home for two decades. Religious leaders in Texas say they have never heard of Elhassan, including the imam at the mosque where he worships. “This so-called leader, we have never heard of this person,” said Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh, the head of the Islamic Center of Irving. “I believe the whole thing is made up.”

I got this from this website: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ahmed-mohamed-clock-bomb-media-narrative-ian-tuttle

This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. This article should be deleted. Comet1440 (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC) — Comet1440 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes I had found that the conservative National Review [1] took a 2011 quotation out of context from Washington Post [2] which itself chose to offer a biased short quote of one sentence made by some unknown named "Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh". Not really impressed by their bending something written elsewhere to meet their authors's conservative agenda, but you have provided more evidence that coverage existed before the unrelated clock incident of his son's, thus showing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are met, so thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This man is pertinent to the issue of staged controversy that seems to be running rampant at this time in our history. He will be mentioned in articles associated with faked outrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goofyfoot2001 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC) — Goofyfoot2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

For those who do not fully understand what is going on here, this man is the father of the boy who got in trouble at school for bringing in an object which he said was a homemade clock but others claim is a store bought clock with the case removed, and put in a briefcase, to look like a bomb. Some suspect this man put his son up to getting in trouble to create misplace sympathy for him. Manipulation of the press, public, and in this case, our President, is a matter of great importance and without the Wikipedia article, the public can't easily learn of this man's background to assess the possibility it was all a set up. I beg that no one delete this article - in fact, it should be augmented, not deleted, with all the history of this man that can be properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.6.229 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC) — IP 76.253.6.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per just meeting WP:BASIC and WP:GNG [3] even before his son received news for an unrelated issue itself brought to a contention & drama-filled AFD by a now-blocked sock puppet. I will grant that The SPAs above are correct in that enough topic sourcing is available to expand, and deletion does not serve the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Received significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Three (3) examples of in-depth secondary source coverage from before the clock incident include: The Huffington Post, The Dallas Observer, and The North Dallas Gazette. Since then, has received secondary source coverage from thousands of sources all across our planet, examples at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ..and THIS source is incredibly detailed.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meets WP:GNG - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. A guy runs for the Presidential elections in a Country, that certainly does make them notable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Cirt establish notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the information in this article very useful. Comfr (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject satisfies general notability due to multiple examples of non-trivial coverage from independent outlets. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2015 (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.