Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Islam

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. I'm closing this per SNOW. That it's a hoax is well-established and there is no evidence for now that the subject is notable because of it. If that changes I'll be happy to restore the content. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Islam[edit]

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

Probable hoax, completely lacking RS, claiming highschool boy earned $79 million in stock market. Courtesy blanked for now. EEng (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment: this page is not eligible to be courtesy blanked, because no harm will results from displaying the contents. I have unblanked it. -- Y not? 19:11, 15 December 2014 (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/2014 December 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A source familiar with the story told Business Insider that Islam is not worth $72 million. The source believes it's a rumor started by Islam's friends or partners that was perpetuated by the New York Magazine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussie78 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw this at DYK but didn't really look into it. Random thought - maybe he's notable for the hoax rather than the article just being a hoax? Fuebaey (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait the full week. This story is changing by the hour. At this point the article has multiple reliable sources, more than sufficinet, but headlines are being changed and updates being added. This is either going to be a WP:BLP1E or the story is going to persist, in which case he will indeed be notable for the hoax. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this was true (and apparently it's not) it's a case of WP:BLP1E unless he gains attention for something else as well. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 09:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I had created the DYK hook thanks to my lack of knowledge about western news sources. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with User:Fauzan, that this is a one-off blip – and not an interesting one at that. One could (I suppose) argue he is notable for the hoax. But this is a one-off event that is not WP:Noteworthy. Who cares? Except for the fact that he is utterly unnotable, WP:Fart would seem to apply by analogy. WP:Bare notability augurs that this article is WP:Crap. I can't imagine that we would want this blatant falsity on the main page. See Template:Did you know nominations/Mohammed Islam 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6+7, surely you know BLP rules forbid us to refer to subjects as "farts" or "crap", nor is it our place to label them as "not worthy". EEng (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, Surely you know that I was referring to the article, the subject and the sourcing (as it presently exists in the article).

As to anything in the sources, at best the named subject of the article has committed chicanery and managed to dupe a couple of newswriters, newspapers, and magazines. There is no other proffered claim to fame or encyclopedic newsworthiness that I can see. Indeed, his imagined exploits were expurgated and exist only in the article's history. Kludt, Tom (December 16, 2014). "New York Mag says 'we were duped' by $72 million teen trader". CNN Money. Retrieved December 16, 2014. This is fodder for tabloids and daily newspapers, but not encyclopedic. The import of Mr. Mohammed Islam's exploits are as evanescent as expelled gas.

Nor were the comments directed at the wikipedia article writers, who were themselves innocently drawn into the tangled web of deceit. For them I feel sympathy, as we are no better than our sources. And a stream cannot rise higher than its source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, would it have made it clearer what I actually meant if, in addition, I'd said "I don't think we should be talking about whether someone's NOT ABLE. Nowadays we say 'DIS ABLED', or 'DIFFERENTLY ABLED'"? Or do I have to start putting little winky-smiley faces in my facetious posts? "Noteworthy", "not worthy" ;) ... "notable", "not able" ;) ... get it??? ;P EEng (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I took you serious. You need to put winking emoticons, so that the humor-impaired among us are not misled. <{:>{)> That's me smiling and wearing my Santa's hat. I naturally sport a grey beard and roof, but the hat is seasonal. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I line up with the Wait-a-week folks. Wikipedia is filled (hyperbole) with One Hit Wonders and people who gained their 15 minutes of fame in all sorts of ways. No rush here. Other than we are contributing to his 15 minutes just a bit. Carptrash (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to wait a week per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Recreate if he ever becomes notable, be it in a week or a year or whatever. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 17:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I gave him 15 seconds and that was too long.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. We already have text on that. Surely we can add it there? It's a couple of sentences in a short paragraph in the New York (magazine) article, and yet it's longer than this two-line stub. (BTW, we could recreate the article when he actually does make some money and is not known as "the guy at Stuy who made a huge hoax about his earnings".) Epicgenius (talk) 21:17, 16 December 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.