Talk:Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... It is properly sourced and makes a credible assertion of notability. -- Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank You.RichardBond (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It needs more work, yes.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The page is neutral, but my opinion of the guy is very low. He used his own kid to stage an islamophobic-awareness political prank. Certainly this guy craves publicity, and I hesitate to reward that. But I generally advocate any page on someone. What's the harm? It's possible this one may be locked for controversy, but a wise man once said, "Nothing moves forward but through conflict." Nehmo (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't delete this page - the public needs to know about the father to make the determination if the "homemade clock" was a setup to get a bad reaction from the school, then portray himself as victim - either for Muslim propaganda, or personal gain or both - look what's happened, this kid is being flown around as though he's some kind of hero - but even if the MSM had not sold the story that way - he'd likely be suing the school district. Most likely, the kid was put up to it by his Dad, but without endorsing that, let's at least give people background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.6.229 (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for expansion
Even the current two sources contain information form which the article can be greatly expanded.
 * Far, far better to fix something with potential than it is to delete.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Far, far better to fix something with potential than it is to delete.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Far, far better to fix something with potential than it is to delete.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Far, far better to fix something with potential than it is to delete.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Michael. It seems that Wikipedia has no shortage of ____.RichardBond (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ignore that sense of "no shortage", and please take the time to expand and source (without copyvio). Those tagging apparently do not feel the two used sources are enough to show he meets of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG, but when actually looking beyond the article I find that there is more than enough. As it has attentive eyes, Source everything.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the sources is quoted as saying that "Neither he nor his party actually appeared on the ballot". The more you read, the more you seem to discover that most of the things he is credited with here are things that he claimed himself. This article, which was contemporary with the Terry Jones fiasco, is certainly very telling. --BeowulfBrower (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As this man is father to the Clock/Bomb Hoax kid, his history is of great interest to people like me who suspect the kid was put up to taking a device that looked like a bomb into school to get arrested and generate this sympathetic reaction. From the links already in the article, it seems to be the case that the father wants attention a great deal - how many people run for President? And it looks like the mainstream media is not going to explore the possibility it was a hoax, which makes it all the more important Wikipedia have a reference available. This gets into mass manipulation of public opinion, it's really important that any institution like Wikipedia do what it can against that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.6.229 (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Degree
This page, published by Mohamed Elhassan, only lists a BA degree and an English Bach degree. Like many things about this man's life, the facts aren't exactly clear. As an aside, this is all I could find on Jet Taxi in Dallas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeowulfBrower (talk • contribs) 10:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, stuff written by the topic himself is okay in some circumstances to use in the article but it would not be usable toward notability, UNLESS found those reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. However, SELFPUB is not being used, so why worry about it. Hmm?  And you'd probably find a lot more on the company which bought Jet out, but his founding a short-lived company is not the assertion of notability. THAT is found in his meeting of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 17:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)