Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Abu Zaid Al Damanhury

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 keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Abu Zaid Al Damanhury

[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)

"Little known" scholar according to article. Speculation about what happened to him but no substantial coverage in WP:reliable sources. Not Notable. noq (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Not notable" on purpose is "notable", even much more famous scholars lack WP:reliable sources. Did you make an effort to improve it? I just added a new citation. Someone else might pick up from where it is left.--هیوا (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For a little-known scholar he certainly picks up a lot of references in Arabic (search under ابو زيد الدمنهوري). Many of these are to websites concerned with Islamic scholarship and I'm not sufficiently familiar with this domain to know which may be reliable and which not. He seems to be something of a bete noire among orthodox scholars so his name is certainly invoked a lot. Mccapra (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While the article is not well sourced as of now, it does seem based on the extensive sources already provided that the person is at least notable. We just need to put more legwork into finding the sources to include here. I'll take a look later today and see what I can find. Michepman (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps هیوا can explain what they meant, but I think the "little known" part is not meant to be a statement about prominence, it is just saying that he was censored so heavily that many details of his life are unknown. It's perfectly compatible with notability if that's the case. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's exactly my point. I am not sure if making that clearer gets this article saved by those nominated it? هیوا (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2019 (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.