Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Mohamed (student)

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

• Renamed to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident.

Let me start by thanking the 126 people who have contributed to this discussion. Opinions here were divided in four main camps: delete, definitely rename, keep with no mention of renaming, and keep but also consider renaming. Of these groups, the most common opinion (about 1/3) was from people who felt the article should be deleted, usually with a reference to WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SINGLEEVENT or a similar rationale. The second most common opinion (about 1/4) came from those who felt we should keep this article but that it should definitely be renamed to focus of the incident rather than the individual. The renaming group often gave very similar rationales to the deletion group, but felt that having an article dedicated to the incident (rather than a biography page) would be sufficient to address the BLP1E concerns. About 1/5 of participants felt the article should be kept as a biography page, with a number arguing that Ahmed Mohamed’s notability in someway exceeded a single event threshold. Most of the remaining opinions came from people who seemed to be okay with either keeping the page as is or renaming it.

Due to expressed concerns by others about sockpuppets and new editors in this discussion, I checked the edit count of everyone that participated here and also noted that two accounts are presently blocked. 20 of the comments came from inexperienced users, and these split 8/12 for keep / delete. Given the very large participation here, I don’t think these views were common enough to influence the outcome.

With only about 1/3 of participants favoring outright deletion, I think it is clear that there is no consensus for that outcome at this time. However, the essential rationale offered by most of the people favoring deletion, i.e. that Ahmed Mohamed lacks the notability sufficient for a biography, is a serious concern, and one that was mirrored by many of the people who favored renaming the article. Though only a handful of the delete votes mentioned renaming as an alternative option, I am going to assume that many of these participants would agree that renaming is better than keeping the nominal biography as is. Given that, plus the many editors who explicitly mentioned renaming, I have concluded that renaming and refocusing the article on the incident is the compromise outcome that comes closest to a consensus.

Having concluded that renaming seems the most appropriate outcome of this discussion, I had to choose a title. The most commonly mentioned new title was Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. However, some people have expressed a concern that this choice is either a BLP problem or technically inaccurate due to questions of how an “arrest” is legally defined in Texas. Given those concerns, I chose to go with the second most common suggestion Ahmed Mohamed clock incident as an interim choice that no one seemed to object to. Along with the move, editors should be advised to rewrite the article to remove biographical elements not relevant to the current incident.

To be clear though, this new name is not intended as a final name choice. The recently started move discussion at the article talk page, should be allowed to continue and reach a more definitive conclusion.

Thanks again to everyone who participated. Dragons flight (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Mohamed (student)

Ahmed Mohamed (student) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete WP:SINGLEEVENT Action Hero Shoot! 10:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note: vote from blocked sock stricken. For full disclosure, I did !vote keep. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• That wasn't a vote, it was the nomination. --McGeddon (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The article sparked massive outrage, went up to Obama and Zuckerberg supporting it. If need be, merge it into Islamophobia in the United States or rename it to an article about the incident. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with your argument (see my !vote below) but I believe you mean't the incident sparked massive outrage, not this article. Thank you for your participation here, sincerely! Juneau Mike (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001:, Aah yes, my mistake. I meant incident, and ended up typing article. Oops. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:SINGLEEVENT is about "whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both", it is not a standalone reason to delete an article about an individual. You possibly meant WP:BLP1E, but the follow-up reactions including a White House invitation would, I think, count as multiple events. --McGeddon (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep or move with redirect National significance and attention linked, at least by the media, with substantial existing sociopolitical factors. Not on the order of a flurry of articles about a person who rescued a kid from a burning building that doesn't give an impression of significance in the grand scheme of things. Likely to be cited for a long time ahead. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I appreciate the discussion of the event rather than the student being the notable topic here. When it comes to the choice of a name for the article, then I don't know that there's any more likely a name under which people would be searching for the article than the kid's name. Of course, his name could be redirected to the article under another title. The title notwithstanding, the topic is firmly notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. However, if the article is redirected, which would most likely be a move, it would be an automatic redirect. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear case of WP:BLP1E – Mohamed is an otherwise low-profile individual known only for this one event. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note: the nominator blanked this page and removed the AfD template from the article an hour ago - this was reverted and the user was advised to follow WP:WDAFD instead. --McGeddon (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as this seems to be a textbook WP:BLP1E situation. There was a mention in the MacArthur High School (Irving, Texas) article, which seems entirely appropriate for now. Until and unless Mohamed receives coverage for something else, there's no need for a standalone article. The reaction coverage is still about the single event. We don't have an article for Andrew Joseph Stack even though there was a ton of reaction reported in the news because he was just known for the single event. This is even less significant than that event. There's also a strong case to be made against this due to the fact Mohamed is a minor. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  What does him being a minor have to anything with the article? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  WP:MINORS might be relevant, though it isn't policy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I had in mind. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  I went thru that page earlier, but it seems to offer nothing significant to this article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Changing my opinion, as the amount of coverage for this has continued to grow. Now I'd say rename to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed, as the incident itself passes WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [1] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You say "to-may-toe" the rest of the world says "arrested" - including the major Texas newspapers Houston Chronicle: "The 14-year-old Irving ISD student was arrested. " Dallas Morning News: "Irving’s police chief announced Wednesday that charges won’t be filed against Ahmed Mohamed, the MacArthur High School freshman arrested Monday after he brought " Austin Statesman: "Irving police arrested MacArthur High School freshman " El Paso Times :A 14-year-old Muslim boy has been arrested in North Texas . That Texas statutes may play with special terminology for their arrest of minors, doesn't matter to Wikipedia WP:EUPHEMISM / WP:JARGON. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: No, it's real issue regarding BLP. Regardless of JARGON or EUPHEMISM, we cannot state it in Wikipedia's voice. Ahmed "has never been arrested" and he can truthfully state that on applications, or court or anywhere else where an arrest is a disqualifying condition. Ten days after being taken in custody, his fingerprints and photographs will be destroyed. Juvenile law has semantic differences for the same reason we have BLP policies. The largest difference is that it's not an arrest and the "charges" for adjudication is for delinquency, not "hoax bomb." Juvenile court would only have a finding of "delinquent" or "not delinquent." The premise for taking him into custody was that his act, had it been committed by an adult, was a crime - but juveniles are not charged with adult crimes in Juveniles court nor do they face the same penalties of incaceration or fines. The semantics are very important if someone searches for his name based on a job application and this comes up as an "arrest" and they believe he lied on the application when he answered "No." If a source is claiming an "arrest" it needs to be in their voice and certainly not in the title. Police software for reports in Texas won't even allow "arrest" as a disposition for 10-15 y/o juveniles (but we only see that in the press release as the report is sealed - only "detained" or "taken into custody" are allowed and it's why the Irving Police press release didn't say "arrest"). --DHeyward (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry dude, there is no BLP issues at all in representing what literally thousands of the most reliable sources around the world are reporting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That's why we are WP:NOTNEWS. This page and text is supposed to last forever. We cannot say he has been arrested. In 20 years, it's WP:LIBELous and none of those news sources will remember Ahmed. It's knowingly false material (unless you can't read) and it's about a non-public person. If it costs him a job, it's absolutely shameful. --DHeyward (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

so nice to see you concerned for people's reputations and well being. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

See comment from Irving Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne, who said that the unreleased police report describes the event as "Arrestee being in possession of a hoax bomb at MacArthur High School"' [2]. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This is why WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS exist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per Torchiest. shoy (reactions) 13:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  I don't understand how a mere mention on the MacArthur page merits this event. This thing has gone international, sparking outrage from all parts of the globe, has received response from POTUS, and non American people as well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also support a move to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. The event may be notable, but an article on the person is pretty clearly WP:BLP1E since there is nothing else that makes him notable. If he goes on to do other great things, then an article about Mohamed the person can be written then. shoy (reactions) 15:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The event won't be notable the day after tomorrow. Tomorrow's football, Sunday is NFL, tonight's another Republican debate, Monday is probably Kardashian or Caitlyn Jenner. It was just an arrest: there will be no court case, no prosecution, no nothing. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [3] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That argument does not hold any water. An event is not notable just because it resulted in a prosecution. The event is notable because there is a very substantial number of sources both nationally and internationally covering the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The argument is very notable because it's a BLP violation to claim he was arrested when Texas law specifically says juveniles are not arrested §52.01(b) and page 7 of the document explains why "taken into custody" is not "arrested". --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it is well past the day after tomorrow for the day after tomorrow, and the event is still making headlines in various parts of the world. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And Torchiest has changed their opinion, what's your rationale now? -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The majority of the coverage on this individual is not about the actual event that occured. Significant amount of coverage is about the other social issues surround the case that made the arrest possible. These social issues include bigotry and the risk-averse priorities that could have an impact on possible progress as well as a discussion on how much energy should be invested in national security, and when such investments go too far. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles and biographies on individuals who are notable primarily because of their social impact. Since the social impact of this particular incident affects society at large, including a particular age demographic and ethnic demographics, it seems to be encyclopedic to me. If not, all the delete voters should put their money where their finger tips are and also nominate/vote to delete other BLP articles on individuals whose main contribution is their social impact. Also, WP:CHANCE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH would apply since much content could be added on his notable relatives besides the subsequent notable propositions that have been made. Furthermore, he is the first person i have heard of who has been able to get so many scholarships, without the usual step of being awarded a standardised academically rigorous, internationally recognised qualification, an advanced educational body certificate or an equivalent entry-level framework test for admissions. Such uniqueness gives weight to the notion of his notability. And the arguments about privacy concerns are unconvincing due to the fact that his dad is quite high profile himself and has no qualms putting his son in the spotlight. And then redirecting would risk putting precious content at the mercy of trigger-happy bold editors who are deletionists. On a final note, the deletion discussion in itself is probably on shaky grounds due to the nominator having socked and his subsequent ill-advised behavior. Kleinebeesjes (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete non notable individual. WP:BLP1E comet1440 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — comet1440 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep and consider renaming to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. It is not clear yet if the individual himself is notable enough to have an article, but the arrest of him is certainly notable. Also, this event has already spurred other events, such as invitation of Mohamed to the White House, the Toronto Science Fair, etc. And each of these future events will have multiple, reliable sources covering them, so this event's notability is not short-lived.VR _talk 14:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [4] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you @Vice regent:. I was considering that and had created a discussion on the talk page, however before I could move, it got nominated here. Would appreciate some feedback there as well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep per concurring opinions above, although renaming of the article may be in order.Juneau Mike (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep, and possible move to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed or Ahmed Mohamed clock incident - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [5] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, possibly rename to incident. He does appear to be a member of a significant family, though, which could be a factor in keeping without renaming. BPK (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. I support deleting this article, the person is only notable for this particular event. If you must keep, then change the name to something appropriate to the event instead of person since it is widely reported about event. The incident itself may be blown out of proportion because he is Muslim. There were similar incidents previously where alarm clocks in lockers were falsely reported. Thanks Rajkancherla (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rajkancherla: Which is why three users including me have suggested renaming the article. Yes, the issue is an issue because of the boys religion. Otherwise, it would have never occurred. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Torchiest's rationale. -- Chamith (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And Torchiest has changed their opinion, what's your rationale now? -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete WP:SINGLEEVENT - The individual is with no significant contribution except for the single news event which became a social media hype. This is a news event and to be directed to the news and events category for the MacArthur High School (Irving, Texas). When this individual does make significant contribution, it is appropriate for a page named after him. Bijtaj (talk)

• Delete as this is another single news WP:BLP1E WP:SINGLEEVENT situation gone viral. There is no substantial contribution of this individual other than the news created due to the social media hype. Instead it should be recorded under events or news possibly titled MacArthur High School (Irving, Texas) student arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijtaj (talk • contribs) 17:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Bijtaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [6] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Bijtat apparently voted twice, moved together for consolidation. Dragons flight (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep per the wide coverage of the subject which satisfies WP:GNG, but rename to the incident rather than the biographical subject. Or if that fails as an option, it at least deserves mention on the school's article. Mar4d (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. A mention at the high school's WP page is sufficient.173.218.58.224 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — 173.218.58.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Only a single event like this can't make a person notable enough to have a WP article on his/her name. But, as Barrack Obama, Marc Zuckerberg etc. influential persons has concentrated on this event or incident, so this incident or event can be an article. But the boy hasn't done any notable deed so that there should be a WP article created. --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 17:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - I concur with User talk:Vice regent and User:Cwobeel above. We should keep the topic, but move the article name to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. The event has received significant coverage and is part of both a larger national discussion on race and religion as well as the history of the digital age (ie. stories about a young Steve Wozniak for example) - which makes it larger than a single news media event. In addition, as pointed out above, there are responses from President Obama, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and schools such as MIT. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [7] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• • I should add that I mentioned just Wozniak because he was really the early digital inventor - Steve Jobs helped him out and was a designer but was not a digital inventor in the same way as Wozniak when they were teenagers in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, comparisons are clearly fair for the article.-Classicfilms (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
    • See also; Spadikam. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
      • • Cool film, I will have to watch it.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Does every novelty news story warrant a Wikipedia article? This one certainly doesn't. Capt. Milokan (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge with MacArthur High School (Irving, Texas). --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  FYI, this is not a vote - admins like to see people giving a reason, not just saying 'delete' or 'keep'. Robofish (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Curious thta you chose to post this under a keep !vote and not under any of the delete !votes, which also are one lines with no explanation in many cases. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  At the time of my comment above, every other comment had a least a minimal rationale except the one I was replying to. (Even 'per someone else' is more than nothing.) Robofish (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:BLP1E. I suggest keeping a section in the article about his high school. EngineerFromVega^★ 18:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Either keep or delete: The debate has gone to level where it is almost impossible to take sides. So, it is my suggestion to either keep or delete but please close this debate asap.--Badnaam (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Badnaam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  This discussion will only be closed early if it reaches a clear overwhelming consensus in one direction (which looks unlikely). Otherwise it will continue for the full seven days as is standard. Robofish (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• keep as the event is being covered my multiple sources and has become an international sensation.Arifjwadder (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:SINGLEEVENT. "Sparking massive outrage", "Being an internet sensation" does not make a low-profile individual notable. A mention in the institution's article would be more than enough. Faizan (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Has anyone bothered reading the comments about moving/redirecting the article? The article has vastly grown in the last few hours. People who are asking for delete on the bases of Singleevent or BLP1E, also read McGeddon stated. The occurrences, the reactions, the entire controversy is far greater than a mention on the school's page. As stated by a few others, and admitted by me, the incident is very much notable, even if the person is not. Also, I'm amused that users with fewer than 1000 edits are just popping up here and commenting delete. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• keep The event is significant and the individual's role is substantial and is well documented. Ahmed Mohamed, for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.--Fairview360
• strong delete setting apart from what an encyclopedia is supposed to be is, as already said, a textbook example of WP:BLP1E, but also WP:10YEARS. As a personal note: this guy doesn't need all this kind of attention, he's already a victim, his life shouldn't become the battleground, even of such a noble battle as fight racism and xenophobia is.--Vituzzu (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Preferably Delete; but if kept, rename to be about the incident, not the person. While receiving a personal comment from the President is unusual, on balance this doesn't seem to me like a clearly notable enough incident to justify its own article. For one thing, there's nothing more to say about it than there is at the moment; no one's been charged with anything, so this seems like a story likely to fade quickly. A mention in MacArthur High School (Irving, Texas) is appropriate, but not a separate article unless Mohamed goes on to achieve wider fame. If it isn't deleted/merged away, this article should be at least renamed to be about the event, per WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  I've changed my mind on this one, the story has proved to have more 'legs' than I expected. Changing my position to keep, though I still think it should be renamed to be about the event, not the person. Robofish (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, major news coverage. —Lowellian (reply) 00:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep - sigh. Eeekster (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Please provide a proper rationale along with your opinion.--Chamith (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to an article about the event. We have one notable event here. The invitation to the White House is just part of the response to this event, and is not notable in its own right. The individual is not notable except for his involvement in the event. The current article focuses almost exclusively on the event. And the event is blatantly notable. The current name should be kept as a redirect page, because it's almost certainly linked to from many places outside WP by now. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep very notable event and recognition by POTUS and founder of Facebook.Alhanuty (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, loads of coverage of significant depth from literally thousands of secondary sources all over the planet. And here's some interesting reading from a little website called WhiteHouse.gov -- We Stand with Ahmed (and We Hope He'll Join Us for Astronomy Night). — Cirt (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep This boy went viral and made the world news, therefore its in my opinion Wikipedia-material. User:KajMetz (talk)
  • Wikipedia is not a viral news website. You can go to Buzzfeed if that's what you're looking for. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia does de facto act as a news site, especially if it's the kind of event that you know will result in significant coverage in the future. Think about what has happened now: the President of the United States has made public statements in favor of this boy. There will be opinion articles, journal articles, and other pieces for years to come. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep This will be important even ten years from now as a historic reference to the ongoing social changes and controversies in the US, particularly those involving minorities. For example Kim Davis (county clerk) still has her own article. NightShadeAEB (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid justification for an article. Unless you would like to show me your crystal ball, I don't see how you can predict the future on where the "turning point" in US opinion was. This is just another incident of decades-old discrimination in the US. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There are times when you can accurately predict significant coverage. For example: if a passenger plane with hundreds of people disintegrates in midair, you will know instantly that there will be significant coverage and it will be notable. Also please note OTHERSTUFF exists is a valid rationale at times: for example if a similar topic survives AFD, it can be successfully used in an OTHERSTUFF exists rationale. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep Don't let Wikipedia turn into Conservapedia. 135.23.189.197 (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Move This should be moved to an article about the event. The coverage of this event may drop off rather quickly in the major media, but it will likely continue to be referred to occasionally, and is certainly notable. Someone reading about this a year or two from now, should be able to come to Wikipedia and find good NPOV info on the subject.Plvt2 (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Classic case of 1E. The young man is not notable by our standards. It's a shit storm in the media, but everything is a shit storm in the media (perhaps the authors of this article want to devote their attention to Summer of Trump?). So what if Obama tweeted about it too? That's what Twitter is--everyone does it, for everything. Redirecting to the "event" makes no sense either, since there really is no event by our (encyclopedic) standards. A redirect to the school is the most we need--and let us not inflate that school's article either. I wish we spelled NOTNEWS bold, and in all-caps. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Move to a better name to priortize on the event, not the person.--Jusjih (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete This is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. We need to uphold our guidelines which enjoy broad consensus, and not get carried away by the emotions of the moment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, but perhaps rename to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed until he becomes notable for more than the one event. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [8] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: What I thought was just a Facebook phenomenon at first turns out to be global now. Found references in Indian (TOI, HT, Hindi language (Jagran),) Pakistani (DAWN), Indonesian (Jakarta Post) sources, etc. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep- per what Rsriknth05 said--Valkyrie Red (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly more than just a single event, given the wider range of issues that this has raised, but also agree that it should be retitled Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. Prioryman (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [9] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and consider renaming to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed, like another said. --Pmsyyz (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [10] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep Mahatma Gandhi was thrown out of Train meant only for White people. That important incident made him to bring revolution through nonviolent protest throughout his life. Similarly the story of Ahmed Muhammad relates to daily humiliation of millions of Muslims from the hands of hypersensitive people and it may result in some kind revolution in thought process towards innocent muslims, who have to bear the brunt from every side. It's therefore, strongly advised to keep this article. User:Haseebahmadkhan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Haseebahmadkhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. BLP1E and TOOSOON. The incident is mentioned in the article on the school; that's sufficient until Mohamed establishes notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - So obviously notable it hurts. May need to evolve into an article about the incident, but no way it should be deleted. ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - Remember Elián González (the Cuban boy). Ahmed Mohammad is likely to become more notable in the future just like Elián. I would worry about the so many real dumb articles that are not being deleted.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS keeps being used as an argument in this AFD. Regardless, whether or not someone is "likely to become more notable" is wholly irrelevant. When they become notable, they can have an article. We don't try to predict notability. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue is why on earth would a school in America do this to a 14 year old student? After learning it was not a bomb, police are called to get him arrested and also suspended from school. It's shocking to the whole world and that makes it notable.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per BLP1E. If there is more to come on this person it can be revisited. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Large number of sleeper accounts are coming here. This AFD is a joke. Old accounts with few edits became aware of this AFD?.112.79.36.212 (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as the very definition of WP:BLP1E. Will you remember him a year from now? I suspect we'll see great things from him in the future, but he has not invented anything yet. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. BLP1E/SINGLEEVENT does not mandate any particular outcome, but prescribes the criteria to be applied in particular circumstances like these. There's very little argument that the subject does not meet the GNG -- for good reason, since being the subject of front-page articles in virtually every major American newspaper and the subject of lead coverage in multiple national network evening news broadcasts is essentially irrefutable. The coverage raise two distinct sets of issues, the more prominent relating to Islamophobia, but also a less prominent but still quite important discussion regarding the barbarous stupidy of school officials who insist that their uninformed reactions to students who actually have done nothing wrong still justifies punishment. (For a rare example of school officials actually owning up to overreacting (albeit a bit grudgingly), see the update here [11].) This is the kind of discussion that makes reasonable outside observers view Wikipedia governance as idiocy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The events surrounding this individual in 2015 are highly significant to the USA and worthy of an article. If the article is not deemed to be worthy due to undue weight on a single event in the life of this otherwise not WP-noteworthy individual, the article should be renamed to reflect the event instead of the person. Again, keep the article, rename away from the person if needed. Rr parker (talk)
• Keep and rename to perhaps Incident at MacArthur High School (2015). As being the events surrounding one person, WP:BASIC is exceeded and WP:PERP tells us that an article is not automatically disallowed by being a BLP1E. My thought is that this exceedingly well-sourced article should be less about the boy, and more about the ignorance and overreaction of those set in authority who do NOT understand the science or persons they were set to judge. The teacher messed up. The school administration messed up. The police messed up. Mistakes by authority happen, and such blatant errors need to be seen under a strong light. Sad that it took their errors to get him a presidential invite to The White House. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to comply with BLP1E. The event here is significant as it is widely covered in diverse sources and meets criteria laid out at WP:EVENTCRIT. gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - People should only ask for a delete if they think there is no hope that there will ever be significant coverage of a subject. Once the President of the United States makes public statements in favor of this person, it's guaranteed that there will be significant coverage in the future, if not today. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Possibly keep & rename but protect. I just know this is going to be a hotbed for edit warring & POV-pushing from both sides of the issue (the people who cry "ISLAMOPHOBIA" and those who think there was a good reason to be suspicious of the kid). Rename to something like Michael Q. Schmidt suggested. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Rename and rewrite - This should not be a biography. The incident is notable, the individual is not (possibly in the future). --George100 (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep/Rename: It can be kept because person is covered by many news papers across the world. Frankly speaking I wanted to create this article on that student. Anyway, but in any case instead of deleting, as per User:MichaelQSchmidt above renaming it to Incident at MacArthur High School (2015) can be a better option. (Or we can wait, Obama and Zuckerberg invited him, If Jimbo also invites him then it will be strong reason to keep this article. ) --Human3015^TALK  13:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: I searched for Ahmed Mohamed on Wikipedia because I thought (rightly) that I would find a better digest of information on this case than in any single press outlet. Happy to see the article renamed, with a redirect from Ahmed Mohamed (student) Alarichall (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per the one-event rule; failing that we should rename the article to "Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed" or similar, because it's the event, not the individual, that possesses notability. I'd caution participants in this discussion to avoid arguments based on furthering social goals against xenophobia, because—as worthy a cause as that is—per neutral point of view it's not Wikipedia's place to be taking a stand on it. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [12] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a news event that will be forgotten in a few days. The individual involved doesn't appear to surpass the BLP1E bar. The incident is unlikely to have any lasting cultural or social significance. Deli nk (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed or Ahmed Mohamed incident or other appropriate title. I'm sympathetic to WP:SINGLEEVENT arguments with respect to BLP. But the episode unquestionably merits inclusion by Wikipedia's criteria (significant, world-wide coverage by numerous top-end reliable sources such as the NY Times, BBC, and so on). It's as much or more about the reaction of the school district, public figures and others rather than the young man himself. If he becomes an award-winning engineer or otherwise notable in his own right we can revisit whether to have an article on him. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [13] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The individual is clearly not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)]
• Keep, a clearly notable topic that has made international news. Like it or not, Wikipedia does in practice serve (among many other things) as a repository of information on many news events. Of course, as a biography, this would be a BLP1E, so I would strongly recommend that it be renamed to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed or similar. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [14] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The initial situation itself escalated, and then escalated into a notable socio-political event with a lawsuit probably in the offing. You never want to be on the wrong side of the phrase "the way the law is written," which is what happened to this kid, but it's both an excellent example of the law of unintended consequences and every cloud having a silver lining thanks to our saturated social media world -everyone has bandwidth. Too, some people simply have greatness, or at least fame, thrust upon them. I mean, jeeze, when I was 14, I wasn't even jacking off to Playboy yet! kencf0618 (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete As per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SINGLEEVENT I vote delete because this falls under a single event. Most of what people are getting outraged about falls under half-truths and not the complete picture. If FERPA did not exist, the school would have been able to put out more info but as of now they have not. How will this event look in 6 months? In a year? 2 years? 10 years? Are they mad because of the kid was detained because of the device? Because the device looked like something as defined under current Hoax Bomb law? Or are they looking for outrage for Islamophobia? The latter is the case for many it seems, especially those wikipedians in other countries and wanting to push their own POV. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  A very snide/nasty comment to make about us non American editors. So we're POV pushing is it? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  Unbelievable comment and lack of WP:AGF. Your assumptions are misplaced, and only demonstrate a certain bias. Shameful. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Excuse, but ADHOM aside, I think the point being made is that this event is no longer "single" nor minimal, as it and now has far-reaching ramifications and existing wide coverage. See WP:NNEWS. The triggering event has become many and is worthy of coverage. Considering the involved parties and the responses, the event is more likely to have continuing ramifications and affect. The violation of civil rights and free speech and presidential attention assure that we need not speculate about what might exist in 2 months or 2 years or 10 years sparked by this event. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I really dislike that the nominator is a confirmed sockpuppet, and I question the efficacy of continuing an AFD created by someone with an agenda. I suggest it be closed by ANYONE as No consensus with leave to be re-opened by a non-sockpuppet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep (rename). This is indisputably a BLP1E, but the event is notable and needs an article. Arrest of Ahmed Muhammad seems like a good name. The use of changing the name is that it clarifies that we aren't providing a complete, balanced biography of the boy, but are looking at him through the lens of this event. Even so, I can definitely accept keeping it without a rename, should that be the consensus; deleting it would be unacceptable. Wnt (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [15] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Note to Closing admin: AfD stats is not showing my !vote or that of FairView360s. Please do make due consideration. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Wait until the seven days are over. Compare this article's coverage and links to similar incidents involving Islamic (Muslim) and non-Muslim students. If it is deleted, then we can either make a note of it, in the news section, the day it occurred on Wikipedia's homepage, and/or mention it in a (quite substantial) division of his high school's Wikipedia article. I do agree that while receiving a personal invitation from MIT, Facebook, and Obama, and being featured in the major and minor presidential debates and in a White House press briefing and in overseas/national newspapers is somewhat big, it doesn't always translate into a definitive case of notoriety- these people and groups issue many statements and commentaries, some of which are archived and forgotten. Until a few years ago, I would normally have agreed with the statement that Wikipedia is not meant for trivial news or other stuff, but that argument by the administration can't carry as much weight as it did years ago, when we still had at least two or three major not-online, print encyclopedias- if not more- still readily available for purchase on a worldwide basis, and before Wikipedia, which is now taken somewhat more seriously, even in academics, than it used to be by the public as a well-cited news source, accumulated the huge amount of news information and other information on local and regional news and happenings that it now has on an almost uncountable number of domestic and international events of many kinds- a sort of online transnational mega-almanac and public record, as well as an encyclopedia. I do agree that this matter will get more attention because he's Islamic, but that doesn't change the fact that it has achieved worldwide public notice, at least for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.153.31 (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete – Non-notable person, per WP:1E. RGloucester — ☎ 02:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: It is incredibly obvious that this topic is notable – to the degree that it is hardly worth saying. The fact that the notability is associated with a single event (or set of closely related events) may be a reasonable argument for renaming the article, but deleting the article completely would make no sense. As far as I know, there is currently no separate article about the incident and its repercussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Straightforward, unequivocal example that should be deleted in full accordance with WP:BLP1E, and also WP:NOTNEWS WP:MINORS...all the keep votes violate WP:BLP1E and probably haven't read it for all its unambiguous worth. This is a story no one will remember a month from now...much less 10 years from now. Claiming this incident is notable or that it will have a lasting impact (or repercussions) is ludicrous. JackTheVicar (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  Got it. All 30+ of us who have voted keep are ignoramuses who know jack about policies. Yes, we understand. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  BLP1E says that for such individuals "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." That is what I proposed in my Keep (merge) vote above. NOTNEWS says that breaking news "should not be treated differently" - it is not a call for the encyclopedia to be out of date. Wnt (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  06:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, for same reasons as "Kim Davis (county clerk)" article exists. Either keep both or delete both. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:WHATABOUTX isn't considered as a valid reason to keep/delete an article. -- Chamith (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently an active RM at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk). Interested parties are hereby invited to participate in that. But that's about renaming the article, not deleting it. Here we should also keep in mind the difference between renaming something and deleting it – per my own prior comment recorded above. I suggest that it is obvious we will not conclude here to delete this article entirely, after its huge amount of associated news coverage and responses by prominent public figures. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: That RM has been withdrawn, because apparently a content fork article (at Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy) had already been created with the incident as the topic. The RM had been submitted without awareness of that, so it didn't really make sense (unless the other article were to be deleted, which seems unlikely at this point). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep -- Although I'm OK with renaming the article for the event, the information needs to be kept. This event has had too much coverage to let this article go away. (Oh, and Jimbo is watching this one per comments on his talk page, so be on your best behavior kids!) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject of this biography is known merely for being at the center of news story that has gotten attention lately, but one that is likely to be forgotten soon. Gnome de plume (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• But notability is not temporary. Once notable, always notable. It doesn't matter whether people have "forgotten" or not. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I think that this is an important piece of information which says something about fears and paranoias of the time we live in. It would be probably not included in traditional encyclopedias, but we are different, and we should/can afford document and cover this story in a professional manner to preserve a more detailed picture of the time we live in for future generations. Deletion would be unconstructive and uncreative, in this case. Just my opinion. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly one event and "person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context." (WP:PSEUDO). Gmcbjames (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• So why not just rename it to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed then? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Because he wasn't arrested, he was detained. [16] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• The event can be easily incorporated into another article with less than a couple of sentences with a redirect - putting the subject matter into proper context with appropriate weight. A separate article is a bit of a stretch for an event which will be forgotten by the next news cycle. Gmcbjames (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Massive Stealth canvassing is going here. 112.79.37.44 (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  This whole AfD is a sham. Newbie users, users who have been dormant for seven years, sockpuppets and what not have been trying to delete it, and made pathetic statements like non American users are POV pushing and don't understand policies. Then there are personal attacks also. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Comment - you realize, I hope, that Google searches of the name and incident are driving traffic to the article. Additionally, within Wikipedia, Jimbo's talk page is one of the most watched talk pages on the entire site -- and this AfD was mentioned there, by Jimbo, so that will drive more traffic to this AfD than is normal. That said, regardless of each of our positions on the matter, we still need to remain civil. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  21:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep (and possibly rename). The incident is worth keeping; it has been covered in the national and international press. I don't feel strongly about the title though. "Ahmed Mohamed incident" would be fine. --Macrakis (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment All editors wanting to rename the article to "Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed" should realize the kid was never arrested, he was detained and taken into custody by the Irving PD. [17] Regardless of what reliable sources have stated, he was not arrested. Further, how can any of you comment on the validity of the article if you don't even know the simple facts of the case? Methinks too many Wikipedia editors of late are social media news skimmers rather than actual students of what's truly going on in the world. Gawd. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Many of them also seem to be showing up via the brigading or canvassing effect. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there actually a difference in Texas between being "arrested" and "taken into custody"? It is true that he wasn't charged, but that's a different matter? --174.88.134.156 (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Nobody'll remember this in 10 years. WP:SINGLEEVENT and be done with it. Rcsprinter¹²³ (converse) 19:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Rcsprinter123: It's not a biography, it's an article on an event. The title just happens to be that of the person involved. I'd move it myself, but I seem to recall that one isn't supposed to rename an article while the AFD is ongoing. And notability is not temporary. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete biography article, per WP:BLP1E and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. It has been mentioned that there is a possibility of renaming the article to "Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed". Given that the subject is a minor, I think we should be judicious in the application of WP:NOTNEWS. Mr. Mohamed has the right to not be immortalized in an encyclopedia for his role in this dubious affair. Sławomir
  Biały 20:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment You got a point there. Imagine 10 years down the road trying to get a job someplace and people search for him and find this article. Not to say the hiring party won't find the info from a news search or basic background search as his finger prints were taken/processed, despite the outcome, the stigma is still there. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete BLP1E NOTNEWS and there are tons of kids that draw pictures of guns that get detained and we don't need cruft like that. If he uses his clock to blow something up, we can add it later.^{[Inappropriate under WP:TPG - See WP:BLP and WP:TPG]} --DHeyward (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  What a nasty and useless comment. Shameful and refactored - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per NotNews. A very unfortunate, and very forgettable, incident of no encyclopedic value. Further, there is WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:BLP1E, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Each of these —BY THEMSELVES— is reason for deleting this article. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 22:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." This is a classic storm-in-a-teacup that causes a short-lived media frenzy and will be forgotten in months. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• rename to the event this is going to be one of the lasting events in the "Racist Texans" narrative [18] [19] [20] [21] (If you think you need to arrest someone because you think they have a bomb, at a minimum you are going to evacuate the fucking school) as well as the "conservatives are anti-intellectual" narrative and the "Americans willing to give up liberties for illusion of safety" narrative. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In the state of Texas, hoax bombs are illegal, much like what would happen if you are in a TSA line at an airport and say "I have a bomb". They didn't have to believe it truly was a bomb for this kid to be detained, the device just looking like a bomb was enough for the police to be involved. See here for more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your apologetics for racism wont make it any less a part of the world's view of Texas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: There's no need to say WV's posting apologetics for racism. WV is just explaining how Texas does things, like it or not. Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by "narratives"? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Textbook example of WP:BLP1E. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• But it's not a biography, despite the title. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  It looks like an attempt at a biography that's mostly about the clock. In any case, I'd think WP:NOTNEWS applies. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Rename to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. Obviously this doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS (I wonder who even suggested it in the first place, because that idea is really stupid), though WP:BLP1E would be an issue unless you rename it. The arrest is obviously notable, so I don't know where all these delete votes came from. Epic Genius (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [22] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, if you want to be technical... Detention of Ahmed Mohamed, then. Epic Genius (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep for the content. Obvious notability. It's not so clear that it belongs in its own article, though. I think there needs to be a single article addressing this incident, and the 2007 Boston Mooninite panic, and others of the kind. If the separate article is retained then it could be reached by a "main article" link off that one. Currently bomb scare redirects to bomb threat, but I'm thinking that combining the two concepts is exactly the kind of thinking that got the kid arrested. If nobody intended a threat, then it's not the same thing as a threat, and there should be an article going into the consequences when it's treated as one. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Rename to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident or similar. That avoids WV's oft-voiced concern about the legal terminology (possibly vs lay reporting and actual legal effect) of the word "arrest". Nothing about this person seems notable except this incident. But it is in lots of major national news, both the event itself and the resulting political response, soul-searching, social analysis, etc., relating to issues other than this person himself. So (at least for now) the event not the person would merit an article. If it winds up being ephemeral, we can always have a new RfD or merger discussion the future (which would take into account "notability not being transient" even if nobody winds up caring or talking about it later). Likewise, if the person himself spins this into a wider project or other activities (or somehow else becomes notable for other reasons entirely). DMacks (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: He was handcuffed and moved to the police station; it was the arrest and the detention. The subject story is not the news that is the event, occurred with the subject because of his invention of the clock, the notable work of the Teener student. I do not doubt notability for the event of the subject that he passes. The suitable rename is Event of Ahmed Mohamed.Justice007 (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Reasons have been mentioned before. I find it utterly hilariuos that some people are trying to put this under oneevent and Notnews category. These guys should understand that everything starts with "oneevent" and then snowballs. To be deleted from wikipedia after this much coverage on international media and long lasting effects on activism and possible changes to the law, anyone calling this a single event without longterm repercussions is just making his peers laugh out loud. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur. But here's a funny idea. If "everything starts with "oneevent" and then snowballs," let's just have one article Big Bang and turn every other article on the wiki into a subhed. If this notion offends you, please chill and think of Foghorn Leghorn David in DC (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete one event and not notable.--MONGO 08:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Quite notable now. Yann (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Politrukki (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, notability demonstrated by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete no notability, just temporary fame, It's a news event that will be forgotten in a few days and nobody care, we also delete this article in arwiki --Ibrahim.ID »» 10:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. See Zero tolerance (schools)#Media attention - there are other cases similar that this doesn't deserve coverage over, and other places a condensed version of the content can go. -- Callinus (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: My compliments to whoever closes this. We've been thru this type of AfD very many times. But the early close by Bigtimepeace in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident (October 2009) counsels the correct action. Close as no consensus and wait, though there is a strong argument to also move to an "event" name, as the subject is only notable for that event.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• FYI to all: A request to change the title of the article to focus on the incident rather than the person has been submitted. Interested parties are hereby invited to participate in the discussion of the appropriate name that the article should have (if it is not deleted). The discussion of the name of the article should, at least primarily, take plate at Talk:Ahmed Mohamed (student) (not here). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow. More canvassing from you? Really??? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as canvassing to be honest. Given that several users who have !voted Delete have said they support an article about the event, BarrelProof is merely informing people here of the debate. I see nothing wrong with it. Why are you making such a big fuss about everything? The very fact that the article talk and the AfD are so long shows clearly that there is more to the article than just BLP1E. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not canvassing. Anyone can participate at Talk:Ahmed Mohamed (student)#Requested move 21 September_2015. If the article is kept, the next step could be a move. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If its "canvassing", its useful canvassing, WV. The event is going to be on wikipedia, let's give it a proper name. I heard you maybe don't like "Arrest"? LOL.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect. This is NOT a vote to delete, but I can't exactly vote to keep, either, as this doesn't really meet WP:BLP as would be required for an article with the child's name. On the other hand, the information about this event should remain in Wikipedia. It's a notable current event with potentially lasting encyclopedic value. -- JeffBillman (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep It's no longer WP:BLP1E The invitations from the president, MIT and various other institutions are separate events, notable, and covered in reliable sources. It makes sense to keep it as a stub and build it up as the already notable, reliably sourced invitations come to pass as additional events. Also, Hullaballoo makes a good point. Users will come here to find out what's known about the subject. There's enough here for a stub and we look stupid if we have nothing. Weak support for renaming to "Incident" if "Keep" doesn't garner the consensus it ought to. If so, his name should remain on the dab page, for people searching for him and unaware of the byzantine wikiways that got the article changed to "incident". But really, if one is building this encyclopedia for users, one should think about the way users will use the encyclopedia. Please note, this is not a case of WP:IAR. There's plenty of policy based analysis that would support a "keep". ONEEVENT, and BLP1E don't compel changing this to "Incident" or deleting it. NOTNEWS is just plain dumb as a reason. David in DC (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing those as unrelated events - not one would have happened without the inappropriate overreaction to the bringing of the clock to the school. But they are all tied up in making the incident something that will have legs. "Cool clock" is likely to become a catch phrase.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to an an article about the event. Still WP:BLP1E. Jonathunder (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and we should probably give a serious warning to the nominator of this AFD. It seems every time there is a big international story, someone wants to delete the Wikipedia article about it. The article about the person is basically about the event. The event does not need a separate article though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, per arguments by User:Kleinebeesjes. -Mardus /talk 02:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BLP1E + WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia needs higher quality articles, not more fluff like this. Muscat Hoe (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:BLP1E, made more pressing in this case because the person of interest is a minor. In response to User:Kleinebeesjes, if there is an important social issue that needs to be documented, it can be done without making a full-scale article in his name (as has been done in the past with Star Wars Kid and Mattress Performance). The kid is in the news because of things that have been done to him, not because of something that he himself did. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment To the user above, who said we need higher quality articles, and not fluff, the kid has been invited to the United Nations. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rsrikanth05: I have noticed that @Muscat Hoe has not made that many edits—only 96 in total. They may not have the necessary experience on Wikipedia to know about "higher-quality articles". Epic Genius (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Epicgenius: Half a dozen other editors here are along those lines, ranging from the nominator, to the guy who Speedy'd this before it came to AfD, the a posts below with 3 edits and the guy who posted on my talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @Rsrikanth05: Do you want (yourself or me) to find the SPAs and mark these as well? Epic Genius (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
        • @Epicgenius: I'm not too good with SPAs, so I would leave that up to you. All I can say is two users, including the one you just marked and the guy who Speedy'd it first, both have similar edits, and one of them has a history of changing other people's !votes on AfDs and was marked as an SPA in an earlier AfD. Should we take this to your talk page? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
          • @Rsrikanth05: Yeah, we should probably take this to my talk page. As for experience with SPAs, me neither. I just marked people with less than 100 contribs. Epic Genius (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
            • Several should not have been tagged (imo). 99.170.117.163 (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

[redacted. IP impersonating a user making unsubstantiated claims about a living person] redacted by -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this even a valid !vote? An IP impersonating a user? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• move to event clear WP:BLP1E, but the event is notable (although fleeting) Gaijin42 (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per arguments by Callinus. The arrest is no more notable than any other resulting from zero tolerance policies. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How is it not notable? The article, the talk page, and this AfD are live examples of it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, completely fails WP:Notability (people). This kid is not going to be relevant a week from now. Delete it fat! -Cool4thesummer (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)— Cool4thesummer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep & rename Article has clearly has notability by the vast amount of ongoing attention the subject has received. Should be re-named and focused on the incident and reactions not the student himself though. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to focus not on the student, but the incident. Due to the amount of attention given to the matter, the article deals with a notable event. Rename to something like, Islamic student hoax bomb controversy. Psalm84 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Selective transwiki to Wikinews: The subject has not received coverage outside of the event; belongs in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Esquivalience ^t 20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That won't work, for a plethora of reasons--it's written in an encyclopedic tone, the original event is long past the point of newsworthiness, there's no specific focus to this article, etc. C628 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no separate article about the event. This deletion debate is for the article about the event. @Dan Wylie-Sears 2 and Jonathunder: you may want to reconsider your comments. Epic Genius (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Big news event happens. Article is started. Lots of readers flock it. Someone is unhappy about encyclopedia articles for news events and launches a notability challenge. Lots of people flood the debate. Article is invariably kept, because our readers want and expect articles about breaking news events. Time passes. A second challenge is made. Then we can calmly decide whether the event was a mere flash of the news camera or an actual event of some sort of lasting sociological or historical significance. That's how these things go... Carrite (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Weak delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:MINORS and WP:NOTNEWS. No move to an article about "the arrest" is appropriate because he was handcuffed and detained but not arrested, as pointed out above. The delete is "weak" because there is followup coverage about the "invented" clock just being a routine 1970's Radio Shack alarm clock which had been removed form its case without any circuit modification, and the incident might have some continuing coverage. See for example the Balloon boy hoax. Edison (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

i have seen people point to a Texas statute that they claims says that Texas doesnt "arrest" minors, it just "detains" them, but I have not seen any significant set reliable sources that back that analysis, in fact all the major analysis from all the major reliable source around the world present it as what the rest of the world sees it as "arrest". But even if it were "police detention" and not "arrest", that doesnt make the fact that the "police detention" of the young man has has significant coverage and will continue to receive significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep ; consider renaming to "Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed". The controversy and news have been about the arrest. I don't understand why folks suggest a redirect to the school; the school is no more relevant than the town, the police force, Muslims in Texas, or any other generic topic. Anybody who is looking for "Ahmed Mohamed" is going to be pretty unhappy to be redirected to one of many anodyne articles about a public high school. Instead, the article should focus on the arrest and subsequent coverage, which is indeed of national importance. As a person, he has not achieved general notability; but as an arrest, triggering a storm of controversy, this is a highly notable event. --Lquilter (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename The article strikes me as being rather news-like, but the arrest of Mohamed has triggered a massive response and intense coverage from a wide variety of sources, which has lasted a week and counting. I think at this point it’s too early to tell whether the arrest will have lasting impact, so I would recommend keeping the article now per WP:RAPID. Let’s wait a month or two to see if this has any lasting impact and act accordingly. Also, I support renaming the article to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I do not support renaming the article with the word Arrest. Ahmed was detained under suspicion. Probable Cause was never fully developed for an Arrest. 2601:CD:4102:9A5D:740D:9BDB:4EA5:36F (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)— 2601:CD:4102:9A5D:740D:9BDB:4EA5:36F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This page is not for discussion of the title. That is happening on the article talk page itself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Enough of this silliness! An arrest occurs when someone is handcuffed and taken to a police station, as happened here. You are confusing being arrested with being charged with a crime. They are TOTALLY different things. Ahmed Mohamed was arrested. Juneau Mike (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Michaelh2001: Please tell this to User:Winkelvi who has posted He wasn't arrested, he was detained 15 times above this. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Handcuffing and going to a police station doesn't always equal arrest. Did they ever say to him, "Ahmed Mohamed, you are under arrest for...you have the right to remain silent..."? No? Then, he wasn't arrested - he was detained for questioning. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and rename/rewrite as an article about the event. It's clearly very newsworthy, even if the individual is not. Stephenb (Talk) 08:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Newsworthy"? Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, it's an encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This incident is more than "newsworthy" at this point. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

So, he is visiting with international dignitaries at the United Nations headquarters in New York, today. If he's in New York City = probably means he will get a LOT more press and maybe even be on a couple Late Night talk shows. Let's just wait and watch how today's events unfold. We have 18 hours, notability has been established, as stated by 60+ people here. Inspite of this, one admin went ahead and deleted the page and then hastily restored it stating Oops, deletion discussion hasn't run its course. This AfD is a perfect case study for systemic bias. Some people here don't seem to understand the concept of Good Faith, or understand the concept of Reliable Sources either. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

...or WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:BLP, or what an encyclopedia truly is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You know, the level of personal attacks from you Delete supporters on this AfD is amazing. Some of you go outright calling people like me POV pushers, some say we don't understand policy at all. Blah, blah, blah. Keep it up. You make the wikiverse a brilliant place!. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi (WV) is completely correct. We're sorry if long-standing policies and guidelines, as well as what Wikipedia actually is, get in the way of your want for a soapbox or newstand. We're an encyclopedia. You're in the wrong place. User:Jacedc (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Fancy hearing that I'm in the wrong place after being around for 10 years and having so many DYKs and ITNs in my kitty. Apparently, I'm in the wrong place. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't understand, assuming good faith, how people could possibly support keeping the article given that its circumstances are textbook violations of long-standing and well-documented Wikipedia polices (WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E). I don't thinking the policies could possibly be any clearer than this. Also note that these events are already covered here, so the article is just a big redundancy. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • By the time I created this article, it was no longer BLP1E. He had already been invited by POTUS, Zuck, among others. Today, the kid is on his way to the UN. Look at the sheer number of people talking about this. It is Not News as well, because it has started debate among people into American society, this time even more seriously. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Except notability criteria for the person himself is different. He is notable for the event. So if anything this article should certainly be merged, but WP:NOTNEWS still applies, as it's a news story. User:Jacedc (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to an event article. Rewrites are preferable to starting over from scratch. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. I would suggest the article be rewritten as an incident that speaks to issues such as racism, the laws, and religious stereotypes. It's not about Ahmed, the individual, but the implication of an event at the end of which a schoolboy was sent to jail for committing no crime. It could also be clubbed with another article about these issues, if there is one. Do refer to the arguments in the AfD for the article [Durga Shakti Nagpal]. It is an analogous article in many ways. Rohini (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, for reasons elaborated on at great length by both keep and delete !votes above, and in the move discussion on the article talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep A Muslim boy gets cuffed for bringing a clock, the issue goes to the president, tech giants, an astronaut, the UN, and has opened a Pandoras Box on racial profiling. Those arguing Delete are merely trying to push their own twisted Propaganda here. ChirpingChewingGum (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)— ChirpingChewingGum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Weak keep/rename/move -- I support the above idea for the article to be Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. The individual is not, by himself notable, but the incident is arguably quite notable. -Jordgette [talk] 22:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Privacy violation of minors should not be encouraged. The article will still be on Wikipedia in a hundred years from now. ErikvanB (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• ...and will remain in the enduring record of thousands of reliable sources for centuries... so what? Wikipedia's neutral stance and care about sharing within itself only that which has already been widely share elsewhere is quite decent. Or is you consider widely sourced acknowledgement by the President of the United States himself to itself to be a privacy violation? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep/Rename - Well I originally came to delete but judging by the amount of sources on Google and the fact he's gained support from the likes of Obama I'd say he's certainly notable, I agree the article does need renaming but have absolutely no idea what to!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep/Rename to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident or something similarly neutral. This has precedent in many topics about people who are famous for events outside of their control (see, for instance, Murder of JonBenét Ramsey). If he ever becomes notable because of his own unrelated achievements, there can be an article dedicated to him. clpo13_(talk) 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Update: The one triggering event has become many with "Congressional Leaders Pleading for Investigation" and "calling for an investigation by Department of Justice. This is far from some run-of-the-mill incident. Anyone really still trying to claim this as non-notable? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:22, 24 September 2015 (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.