Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Hassan(united states)

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 no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hassan(united states)

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

Poorly-referenced article by single-purpose account on someone who doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (people) Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wall Street Journal article is an independent source that shows that he was really a candidate, even if he largely failed to make it to the balot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is a fringe candidate inherently notable? Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't notable for being a candidate. He's notable for the court case. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Political candidates are not inherently notable, let alone unofficial ones that don't make it onto the ballot - even if this ballot was for the Presidency of the United States. One independent source and several self referential ones means he fails WP:GNG. Funny ^Pika! 05:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - apart from the plentiful press sources, how can someone who succeeds in getting the FEC to drop the ban on naturalized American citizens running for president not be notable? The abysmal state of the article shouldn't divert from that. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I wouldn't necessarily call two independent sources "plentiful", both sources [1][http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/348933/] state that the Federal Elections Commission merely clarified its position on naturalised American citizens running for president. His court cases are still ongoing so, unless there is a more definitive outcome, he fails to meet WP:EVENT. Funny ^Pika! 07:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well done to User:In ictu oculi for the substantial improvements. The page has now been moved to Abdul Hassan (American lawyer). I've set up a dab for the others of this name and there are no other lawyers, so I think a title simply of Abdul Hassan (lawyer) may be even better, and I've set up Abdul K. Hassan as a redirect, as he seems to be commonly known as this. I change my own vote to keep. Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though he is not famous as a presidential candidate, he is notable as a naturalized citizen fight against the Natural-born-citizen Clause and pursue the right of a naturalized citizen to run for president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty & equality (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States presidential election, 2012; subject of this AfD has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, as indicated in this search. That being said, the subject has received most of that coverage related to the subject of the article United States presidential election, 2012 and therefore falls under WP:BLP1E. As the subject is primarily notable due to a single event or series of event that falls within the scope of the suggested article, a redirect is in order if we are to follow BLP1E. Furthermore, WP:POLOUTCOMES also informs us that a redirect is the proper outcome of this type of AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RightCowLeftCoast - are you aware of any other naturalized US citizens who have brought such cases? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2013 (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.