Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assim al-Hakeem


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Assim al-Hakeem

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not meet notability guidelines SWL36 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Continuing, Subject does not meet notability guidelines WP:N. There is not a reliable source in this article WP:RS, most of the sources used are youtube/twitter/the subjects own website. Some of the independent sources are PeaceTV and StudentRights.org. These are not reliable sources as per the above guideline and a google and google news search turn up a handful of reliable sources that mention him but these mentions are trivial. In sources other than the Moroccan one the mentions of him are one sentence or less and often occur in opinion and analysis pieces. These mentions do not arise to the level of "significant coverage" that is required to achieve notability. The main claim he has to notability are that he was disallowed to speak at a small university, an event only noted by the above source and blogs as a standalone occurance. The incident was mentioned as part of a (as far as I can tell) RS discussing deplatforiming "hate speakers" but again, he was mentioned as one of several. Trying to keep an article like this would result in a stub backed by the above sources that amounts to "al-hakeem is a cleric who has said bitcoin and selfies are haram. He was uninvited from speaking at a university.". This falls short of something that should be included in an encyclopedia. SWL36 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I can’t comment on notability, but I did find a reputable source (George Washington University) with an entry that covers the topic: https://scholarspace.library.gwu.edu/downloads/dv13zt32q. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 21:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to create an archive or give an alternative version of that source? Chrome seems to think that the GWU website is compromised. SWL36 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Same problem on other browsers. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I cannot archive that source on both the Wayback Machine and Archive.is. However, you should be able to override the warning by clicking a button along the lines of “Detailed”/“Advanced”. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 00:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've found a different website that hosts the memo. While it certainly is an interesting read (done by an associate director of the U of C Middle East studies department) and is an in-depth analysis on al-Hakeem and his ideology, I'm not sure it qualifies as a RS as it is a memo and not peer reviewed.
 * First, the article is an analysis on mostly primary sources, al-Hakeems social media postings, with some secondary sources to give context on his beliefs. It does not appear to be a journal article and it is mentioned on the website that it was drafted at a workshop. I think that this is functionally equivalent to an opinion piece. One that is written by an expert for sure, but I don't think this analysis is enough to save this article. However, it is a much better source than what the currently filled with, though that isn't saying much. SWL36 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject appears to fall below the relevant notability guidelines. There is some material written about him on blogs and discussion forums, as well as in self-published books lacking editorial oversight and Wikipedia mirrors. None of these are reliable sources. I don't see this as being sufficient per WP:GNG. MontyKind (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Needs improvement but no question that the subject has been covered in multiple mainstream media sources on multiple occasions and therefore meets notability guidelines. Closer should note that nominator appears to have selectively canvassed editors about this AfD in breach of WP:CANVAS. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A pretty absurd insult considering that I notified the four most active editors in the 6 months for this article: and  have issues with this article and  and  were major recent contributors to it. Receiving a warning like this from an uninvolved editor who is involved in a separate dispute with me is interesting, to say the least. SWL36 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Bastun's reasons. – Batreeq ( Talk ) (Contribs) 22:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete when you take away the dozens of self published sources, affiliated sources, social media and blogs there is almost nothing to show notability. This is one of the worst cases of refbombing I've seen for a while. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. This is poorly sourced promotional verbiage hoping to make it into Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I searched for him in the two largest English language papers in Jeddah, and found nothing. Current sourcing is insufficient - fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.