Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assim Al-Hakeem

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Assim Al-Hakeem}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Assim Al-Hakeem}})

Non notable cleric, possible UPE, article was moved to draft three times by three different editors for improvements but of no use. Tetrainn (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

:Speedy keep: Subject has dozens of book and scholarly paper mentions as a prominent cleric, so passes WP:GNG based on the sheer prevalence of references, regardless of other considerations. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. The article was not {{tq|moved to draft three times by three different editors}}. It was moved one time by {{u|Pbritti}}, then improved and submitted to AfC and accepted by me. The nominator then moved a second time, which I reverted per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. The accusation of UPE is unsubstantiated and probably should be struck. {{ping|Tetrainn}} If you have evidence that someone is engaging in UPE, then follow the instructions in WP:PAID#Reporting undisclosed paid editors and send it to a functionary. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• :Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, an article may only be unilaterally moved to draft space a single time. So the nominator's statement is an admission of violating our draftification procedures. The nominator's own misbehavior is not a valid reason for a deletion nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: The cleric itself is notable as his fatwas have already been cited in books and journals. Moreover, he has been on TV, answering many questions about Islam. Hence, I believe that he passed the notability requirement and deserves to have a Wikipedia article. Faldi00 (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

::Weak keep. From a quick google search I thought notability would be very clear, but I'm not sure any of the RS coverage is significant. Not gonna whack out the sources table. UPE allegations unlikely since coverage is pretty mixed in tone.

::* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/23/julien-blanc-ban-just-martyrs-him - He's given a paragraph here in a list of examples of people allegedly worse than Julien Blanc. Borderline sigcov.

::* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-29427184 - Mentioned in passing, no sigcov.

::* https://maldivesindependent.com/politics/government-accused-of-using-radical-preachers-to-justify-injustice-122666 - Sigcov, but dubious for reliability as tiny outlet which shut down some years ago.

::* https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200601-saudi-cleric-it-is-prohibited-to-protest-in-islam/ - Sigcov, but is also a state-backed Islamist outlet.

::* Fintech and Islamic Finance - No sigcov, passing mention

::

:: I'm guessing there are lots more arabic sources here I'm not getting at. Given that this individual's focus is primarily in producing arabic content for muslims and is relevant enough in that field to be mentioned by BBC and The Guardian, I think it's fair to assume more coverage exists that I'm not able to locate right now. That said, the current article is a puff piece and doesn't adequately represent the extent to which he has been criticised for bigoted views.

::BrigadierG (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

:::WP:SUSTAINED could also reasonably considered to be fulfilled by the level of diversity and regularity of the subject's coverage. The figure is mentioned frequently and repeatedly. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.