Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Hijab

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. Daniel (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Hijab

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was previously deleted via PROD with the rationale Expired PROD, concern was: Having searched for additional references, I am convinced that this man fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. The existing article, which reads like a puff piece, is very dependent on sources directly associated with him. Once you strip away all the stuff referenced from sites he is associated with there’s almost a total absence of reliable third-party coverage. This rationale still applies.

This source is not independent, we have a passing mention in Buzzfeed, a brief article in the Romford Recorder and a YouTube video. A WP:BEFORE search does not yield any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, only more passing mentions like this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some minor mentions does not ad up to inclusion on Wikipedia. I could do no better than nominator when searching for sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a guy who's got a mike. does not meet our inclusion criteria. Mosesheron (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2021 (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.