Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Terrorism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Terrorism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Terrorism.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

List of Terrorism deletion discussions

Hikmat Nafi Shaukat

Hikmat Nafi Shaukat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Hikmat Nafi Shaukat" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Once again, a BLP with serious concerns. Sourcing, at first glance looks okay-ish, but look again. Hikmat Nafi Shaukat appears in lists and groups, yet very little information--too little to access notability--is about him. I am afraid this is more of a coatrack for CIA torture than an actual encyclopedic article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure I see the BLP concerns here (it seems to pass V and DUE, one could argue on PERP and lack of conviction - but CIA black sites are a murky business). The subject isn't close to passing WP:SIGCOV - the sources in the article do not establish this, and a BEFORE does not find much more. Much of the content of the present article is a POVFORK/COATRACK on Black sites - with the article really being about Hikmat Nafi Shaukat's incarceration at a black site - which does not seem independently notable from Black site. I don't think there is anything here worth merging to Black Site.Icewhiz (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV despite the fact that he is one of a number of detainees discussed with relation to "black sites."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Rahaf Zina

Rahaf Zina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rahaf Zina" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Several glaring problems here. First off, notability is not inherited which, in this case, to her alleged husband. All of the news sources are in the context of her spouse. Two, we are not the news; light coverage is tracked to early April 2017 then falls off immediately. And finally, the subject is a BLP and there is not a particular claim for individual notability, besides this one event. Perhaps you can argue this should be redirected to her husband's article and briefly mentioned, but a seperate article is clearly undue. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, for reasons given, especially WP:BLP1E. The article is entirely about her arrest, which is a heck of a thing to base an alleged biography on. --GRuban (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 04:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. She's still a living person! Give her the privacy a private individual deserves! Does anybody has a fetish for terrorism-related event, person, or objects? Dannyniu (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • As a courtesy to previously non-notable people people who are relatively unknown, we require a higher bar of notability, before we cover them. Dannyniu, are you really argung that Rahaf Zina should be seen as a non-notable person low-profile individual? However, wasn't her husband a Daesh cabinet member? Can anyone argue that people who measure up to WP:POLITICIAN, or their spouses, should be considered non-notable people people who are relatively unknown? As the widow of someone who measures up to POLITICIAN I suggest you should not argue she merits the courtesy privacy protection we offer previously non-notable people people who are relatively unknown. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I won't speak for Dannyniu, but yes, I will absolutely argue that being the wife of a cabinet member does not make you notable. Notability is not inherited. We did not have an article on this person before this incident, and this article is made entirely of sources generated after the incident. The signs of prior notability are severely lacking. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I wrote "previously non-notable people", and didn't use the precise phrases BLP uses "people who are relatively unknown" and low-profile individual No, being the wife of a POLITICIAN doesn't make you WP:NOTABLE notable, but my suggestion was that being the spouse of a cabinet member disqualifies you from the special courtesy privacy protections we extend to low-profile individuals, who are relatively unknown. Rahaf Zina, unlike people who meet the criteria for POLITICIAN, would have her notability built up by adding multiple notability factors, which would include:
        1. Claims she paid one million Phillipines dollars to a confederate who was a senior Police official;
        2. Claims she was involved in a plot to bomb the Phillipines;
        3. Marrying her former brother-in-law -- this was standard procedure, in various cultures, but is remarkably uncommon now.
This discussion may conclude her notability factors don't currently add up to enough notability for a standalone article, but I think claims she is a BLP1E are specious. Geo Swan (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • To the degree that "claims" can actually be said to be an "event", two claims made at once would still be one event. As for the claim that she married her brother-in-law:
  1. That claim was not in the source being cited, so I deleted source.
  2. Even had she married the brother of her late husband, that would not be marrying her brother-in-law, as marriages end with death; she would be marrying her former brother-in-law.
  3. Even had she married her former brother-in-law, that would not be the sort of thing that would get coverage on its own. I've never seen a headline proclaiming that someone otherwise non-famous has done that.
  • This is a blatant WP:BLPCRIME case, and inventing things about her isn't going to change that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Er ... where is our list of articles of actual Daesh "cabinet members" again? I propose that Daesh "cabinet members" do not qualify for WP:POLITICIAN much less their spouses. There is a reason for this! Being an actual politician demands extensive publicity and press coverage to get people to vote for you. That is what makes it pretty likely there are large quantities of sources about you that we can write articles from. Being a leader of a terrorist group demands extensive secrecy to get your much more powerful enemies not to drop bombs on you. That's what makes it pretty hard to write articles about leaders of terrorist groups. Again, much less their spouses! --GRuban (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • As for a "fetish for terrorism related events, persons", etc... First, terrorists are much less common than murderers. We don't cover every murderer, only truly exceptional murderers, because murders are so commons, and, sadly most of them are so similar, that we can adequately cover almost all murders, and almost all murderers, in our more general articles, on murder, on domestic violence, on drug dealing, etc. But terrorists are relatively rare, rare enough that each one is unique enough for a standalone article. If murderers were that rare, we would cover just about every one of them too.

      Female terrorists are particularly uncommon. It is rather a man's field. Geo Swan (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

      • Geo Swan careful calling a BLP a terrorist when, at best, she is a suspect. And terroists are relatively rare? There were over 11,000 individual terror attacks in 2016.[1] That is little over 30 per day and I imagine every single one was not committed simply by just one person. Do literally tens of thousands of people each year deserve an article simply because you are under the false impression that terrorism is "relatively rare"?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLPCRIME; the merely accused do not get an article except under extraordinary circumstances. This is not the first such problematic article along these lines from this editor, and some preventive measures should perhaps be considered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suspect this should be discussed jointly with Hussein Al-Dhufairi, possibly with a view to merge both to an article regarding the plot and not the BLPs - however issues on both are similar. If Hussein Al-Dhufairi is notable per WP:SOLDIER (and note - this isn't just a crime "thing") and this BLP is not - then this should redirect there.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • With regard to merging the Rahaf Zina article into the article on her husband... When I first started reading about the arrests, while all the articles agreed that she was travelling with Hussein Al-Dhufairi, the reporting was genuinely confusing, with many articles saying she was married to Hussein Al-Dhufairi, and others saying she was the widow of his brother Abdul Mohsin Al-Dhufairi. This is the kind of detail reporters get wrong. It took me some time to realize that, after her first husband, the father of the child she was bearing, was KIA, she subsequently married his brother. So, in a situation like this, where someone has been married twice, it is harder to argue it is obvious the article should be merged with the spouse's article. Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      Yes, but in this case it would seem both are primarily notable for the Philippine plot they got arrested for (and subsequent deportations / etc.) - am I wrong?Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Fact check Nom's assertion that "All of the news sources are in the context of her spouse" is misleading and untrue. What AFP, for example actually reported is that she is a member of ISIS and was in the Philippines to carry out "a bombing operation". Here is an open access article: "Philippines police arrest couple with alleged Isis ties in joint operation with US and Kuwaiti intelligence" excerpt from text: "arrest... may have been planning bomb attacks"E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The Manila Times reports "Dismissed Police Supt. Maria Christina Nobleza received at least P1 million in money transfers from Rahaf Zina, the widow of a top IS Syria official, before both women were arrested in April and March, respectively." Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Gregory, come on now, you have to realize I read anything you throw out there, and know you are just reiterating my point with the source. Zina is described within the context of her husband--as a widower and possible wife. Any "notability" she possesses is from this one event, and any merge would be too soon since no one has actually been convicted yet of any plot.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, merge with Hussein Al-Dhufairi, and rename something like 2017 ISIS bomb plot. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give an opportunity for editors to consider Gregory's submissions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nat Gertler, including the part about taking a closer look at the contributions Geo Swan. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge both this and Hussein Al-Dhufairi to Abu Jandal al-Kuwaiti. Abu Jandal is apparently notable, the other two people are not, and the Philippines "terrorism plot" isn't notable either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
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. Although E.M.Gregory made substantial improvements to the article, there was no general agreement that this proved the topic met the criteria for inclusion, and the conversation started to get heated, which is usually a good time to kick the discussion into the long grass. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer

2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Clear example of WP:NOTNEWS. Single news event without lasting coverage or notability. All of the citations are from the couple of months immediately following the event. Searching for lasting coverage, I found news articles from the day the suspect was convicted, and nothing since. CrispyGlover (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Nom's assertion about sources - "nothing since" - is flatly contradicted by the simplest WP:BEFORE search on any reasonable keywords, such as: "Edward Archer" + Philadelphia; "Jesse Hartnett" + Philadelphia; "Edward Archer" + "Islamic State. Here:[2], for example, is a gNews search on "Edward Archer" " convicted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extremely wide international coverage in 2016 around the event. More coverage in 2018 around the trial and conviction, e.g. - Shooter Who Attacked Philadelphia Police Officer Jesse Hartnett in the Name of Islamic State Found Guilty, NBC10, Jury Shake-Up In Trial Of Man Accused Of Shooting Philly Cop As Testimony Continues, CBS, Accused cop-shooter ruled competent, scheduled for trial in January, philly. Coverage in 2017 around various issues Pa. Trooper's Use of Tourniquet Comes as Device's Popularity Is Skyrocketing, NBC10, Officials Honor 5 Local Officers Who Survived Being Shot in the Line of Duty, NBC10. Journal article - Gallagher, Martin J. "The 2016 ‘Lone Wolf’Tsunami-Is Rapoport’s ‘Religious Wave’Ending?." Journal of Strategic Security 10.2 (2017): 5. (there are also some 4 google book hits - however I'm uncertain regarding RSness of some of them). Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

*Delete I don't see what differentiates this from all the news events that are covered every single day. The link to Wikipedia is not a newspaper is a useful one; it states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I don't see any enduring notability here - there's a burst of coverage after it happens, like with all cop shootings, and a burst of coverage after the conviction - and that's it. Rockypedia (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Note that User:Rockypedia has been indefinitely blocked as a puppet master, and that Nom was one of his socks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, clear case oj WP:NOTNEWS. As User:Icewhiz says, coverage is from the time of the incident & time of the trial.TheLongTone (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Encouraging to see the "I can throw the same news story at you so this is notable" rationale is not cutting it with most of the editors thus far. Clearly another case of why we are not news; it is simply illogical to claim there has been continued coverage when there has only been brief bursts of reports at exactly the time we would expect them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Per GracefulSlick above; WP:ROUTINE and "wire spamming", which just takes the same story and with minor rewrites or re-configuring of content, makes it seem like a clean source. Nate (chatter) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:HEY, KEEP - article has been updated and expanded. The WP:SIGCOV meets WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:GEOSCOPE with 2 years of regional, national and some international coverage. There has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE that is WP:DIVERSE with multiple, unique, WP:INDEPTH articles not only in Pennsylvania, but in such national publications as the Wall Street Journal. And although 2 years is soon for scholarly coverage, there have been 2 articles in the Journal of the Philadelphia Bar Association. The assertion that coverage is WP:ROUTINE is refuted by the nature of sources already on the page. Reasons for the intense coverage probably include: the unusual nature of the attack on a police officer with no apparent precipitating incident or motivation; , the video showing PERP sticking his gun into the patrol car and shooting the officer at point-blank range; the fact that the seriously wounded officer gave chase; statements by Perp declaring his Islamist motivations, including statements of jihadist motivation made at trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Updated and expanded"; in other words, you hastily threw in unavailing quotes so you could bump up the reference count, some of which are conveniently behind paywalls. If anything, you have proven why the article falls under what we are not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Please WP:AGF. Searches get over a thousand hits. I expanded the article - which was desperately in need of updating - by adding s INDEPTH coverage from well regarded, large circulation publications, like the Philadelphia Inquirer a paper that, after I had looked at several articles, told me that I had "exceeded my monthly limit" and would have to pay. So I switched to a news archive search. It is perfectly legitimate to cite articles using the URL in a news archive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment If you ran out of free stories for the month on one site solely to source this then moved to an archive site with the same source, you're doing it wrong. Articles require a diversity of sources, not just one publication following the story through a number of months, as the Inquirer has clearly (but yes, rightfully) done. This is no better than the "wire spamming" I described above and only shows local notability rather than anything that has sustained outside the Delaware Valley. Nate (chatter) 03:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Except that article is sourced to a wide range of reported stories in WP:RS publications in many American cities and in other countries, as well as to books and academic articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Sources 57 and 58 are from the same writer just writing for two publications that share a newsroom. 65 is just another bullet-point made by an NRA spokeswoman in her book to advance a certain agenda. And the vast majority of sources outside Philadelphia are just 'crime beat' stories which are hardly unique and parrot the local media with only appropriate drop-ins to point out things unfamiliar to readers outside of the Delaware Valley. It is pure wire-spamming. Nate (chatter) 16:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you are asserting, to take just one example, that the articles that ran in the Wall Street Journal, and that did not credit a wire service but that were signed by journalists Scott Calmert (11 January 2016,) Devlin Barrett (13 January 2016) were "wire-spannimg"? That, in other words, the Wall Street Journal pretends to have put their own reporter on the story when they are merely copying a wire service story without copying the wire service? You may want to take a closer look at the sources. If you find actual evidence of wire-spamming, by all means remove it. But the notion that major newspapers behave in the manner you have accused them of behaving is absurd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the duplicate cites, I have deleted one. On your 2nd point, even if a fact provided by a partisan organization is cited to as part of an argument in a book by Dana Loesch, we nevertheless have a well-known political commentator discussing this case as part of an argument she is making in a book. You are, however, ignoring the fact that the article is sourced to over 60 published books, stories by numerous authors in geographically disparate major media, plus academic articles over the course of more than two years. Just as an example, here [3] for those who can access it, is my search of the shooters name the in the Wall Street Journal, most of the 17 are signed articles reported by journalists working for the Journal. the assertion that coverage is local, is wire spamming, or fits NOTNEWS is simply invalid. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • With regard to sourcing, I want to note the discussion of this incident in books by well known individuals including Claude Moniquet, a former French intelligence official, and American political commentator Dana Loesch, and also to note an essay in the Wall Street Journal about the politics of talking about this crime by Dorothy Rabinowitz. There is a great deal of published commentary and news coverage of the question of whether or not this should be categorizes as a terrorist attack (pro and con) that could be added to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Not only has INDEPTH reported coverage been ONGOING since 2016, there have been many INDEPTH reported stories about the shooter and about the officer who was badly injured, there have been discussions in books and in long articles in major media discussion whether this is an instance of terrorism or of mental illness (Note that the court judged him competent to stand trial;) in addition to discussions of this issue in two articles in a minor law journal, books, plus many essays and news article in newspapers on the fact that having some sort of mental illness does not preclude participation in an act of terrorism (cf. Philadelphia Inquirer, December 26, 2017, Was Harrisburg shooting spree a terror attack?; The Convergence of Mental Illness and Terrorism, Some of these are op-eds, like this one from The Star-Ledger, March 2016 Mental health issues, not Islam, is why man shot Philly cop, lawyer says, and then there is coverage of this attack as part of the ISIS -inspired wave of attacks like this Peter Bergen CNN story How Big Is the U.S. Terror Threat?. I also have to refute your assertion - or pehaps assumption? - that coverage has been anything like "routine." Routine crimes get maybe a story when the verdict is handed down, this story generated news coverage as the trial date was set, as the trail approached, coverage of what was said and who the witnesses were during the trial, plus, of course, stories when the verdict was handed down. This is not what not routine coverage, it is what coverage of a WP:NOTABLE WP:NCRIME looks like. Oh, and Here this crime is included in an academic article in the journal of the Combating Terrorism Center, January 2017, [Is There a Nexus Between Terrorist Involvement and Mental Health in the Age of the Islamic State?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of WP:SIGCOV from scholarly sources example [4]--Shrike (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify that assertion, in light of the fact that this article is sourced to over 60 published books, stories by numerous authors in geographically disparate major media, plus academic articles published over the course of well over two years?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - The WP:SIGCOV meets WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:GEOSCOPE with 2 years of regional, national and some international coverage indeed. User Shrike and user E.M.Gregory are right in their assertions.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - the story received the media coverage it got because the shooting was originally thought to be related to ISIS, yet no evidence of their involvement was ever proven. This is purely a mentally unstable individual who became radicalized in his head, and decided to shoot a cop. The shooting was politicized by others with their own agenda to push. Thankfully the officer didn't die, but that serves to make this even less notable. Today we have the luxury of hindsight to see that the event didn't deserve the broad media coverage it got. Overall, a routine occurrence, and I think that WP:NOTNEWS carries more weight here. TimTempleton (talk)

(cont) 18:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Responding to TimTempleton. In their 2016 Brookings Institution book, Countering Terrorism, political science professor Martha Crenshaw and criminology professor Gary LaFree rather agree with you, arguing that Archer's "motives were obscure" despite his repeated claim "to be acting in the name of Allah and ISIS." By contrast, in his 2017 book Unholy Alliance: The Agenda Iran, Russia, and Jihadists Share for Conquering the World, First Amendment attorney Jay Sekulow places Archer in a group of "Muslims (who) choose to bring Islam to the West through violent acts of jihadist terrorism." The fact is that discussion of Perp's motives for the point-blank attack on a police officer have been canvassed in WP:SIGCOV that includes scholarly articles and INDEPTH journalism. It does not take a CRYSTALBALL to predice that it will be revisited when the trialcorrection:sentencing hearing - begins this summer. Motivation, meanwhile, is only one of several aspects of this shooting that have attracted EXTENSIVE and ONGOING coverage in books, scholarly and news articles. Furthermore our standard is WP:GNG not our personal opinions about what should and should not be written about in books and newspapers.) WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME are met in this case by extensive and ONGOING coverage in WP:RS journals, news media and books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note also the runaway bride cause in NCRIME If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable. - it matters not what the final verdict here is (and the jury is still out) - whether an ISIS connection was proved is immaterial, what matters is coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • He's been found guilty - we're just waiting for the sentencing. There is a fundamental difference of opinion which basically comes down to the question: is an event notable if it turns out to not have been as much of a big deal as the media once thought it was? I get the runaway bride comparison, but that was a rare event. A crazy man shooting a cop is sadly not rare, especially since he was just wounded. This reminds me of several similar past discussions about terrorism attacks where there were no fatalities, such as the 2017 Yavneh attack. Deletion discussion: [[5]] That one was kept, but I voted delete there also, for the same reason. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Tim, You call him a "crazy man," but the judge looked at his status and ruled him competent to stand trial. Also, in this case, coverage has been ongoing since January 2016, and includes substantive discussions in 4 books by bluelinked authors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • He may have been ruled competent to stand trial, but his violent action certainly doesn't suggest he was a normally functioning member of society. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. What's key is that if you take away the ISIS claims, which are generally accepted as being made up, this is a routine police shooting by an angry man. I feel that by voting this article as worthy of inclusion, we are in some way legitimizing the falsehood he tried to spread. Unfortunately, this is likely going to be a no consensus, which is the same as a keep. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 04:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you source your assertion that "the ISIS claims, which are generally accepted as being made up,", are "a falsehood". Multiple scholarly sources now on the page make clear that perp claimed to have attacked a police officer on behalf of ISIS, discussing it as an instance of a perp who was inspired by the idea of jihad, without actually being in contact with ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure. Keep in mind that I knew nothing about this when I came to the deletion review. Everything I know is from reading legitimate sources. [[6]] "Authorities later said there was no evidence indicating that Archer had coordinated the attack with any terrorist organization, and he was never charged with terrorism-related counts." [[7]] "Comey said authorities had found nothing to suggest that confessed shooter Edward Archer was part of an organized terrorist cell or was planning any follow-up attack." TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah. You are unaware of the definition of [[lone wolf (terrorism}]], carried out by individuals who have had no contact with radical or violent groups, but who pick up ideas from TV or websites. For the short course, you might want to take a look at Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism, a book that explores Archer's trajectory as a type.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm familiar with the term - seems very subjective to assign his random statements weight, when someone can say whatever they want, to get attention. Some people also act on voices in their heads they claim to hear. There's a lot written about schizophrenia also. I'm focusing more on his violent action being non-notable, not its purported inspiration. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Really wish you hadn't. Heymann's are supposed to signify improvements to an article, not selective quotes and a POV essay on why mentally ill suspects can/should still be called terrorists--as long as its Islamist terrorism. I would almost be willing to change my !vote to return the article to its prior form; it would still be unnotable, but at least imitate an encyclopedic entry.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an inaccurate description of my source/expand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • For the curious, several paragraphs at the end of this January 2018, open source AP story from the Allentown Morning Call provide a quick summary of what is known about Perp's mental status, and "pledge of allegiance" to ISIS, Prosecutors: Man who shot cop for Islam was ‘lying in wait'. Discussions of this question in several academic books and articles, and by some non-academic sources (pundits, Mayor,) can be found in 2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer#Motivation of perpetrator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep — Meets and exceeds WP:SIGCOV, with 80 citations so far. People's unfounded objections include WP:ROUTINE, but that's a misreading of the policy. See WP:NOTROUTINE, which reads, for example, «Once every four years, the United States holds an election for President. These elections are "routinely" covered by every news outlet and the event is a "pre-planned event" as a part of the United States Constitution. However, that does not mean that this coverage would be excluded from notability discussions because of the WP:ROUTINE guideline.» Besides, WP:ROUTINE is designed to weed out "announcements, sports, or celebrities," not actual lone wolf terrorism. Another unfounded objection is WP:NOTNEWS, but WP:SIGCOV alone trumps that, and anyway the book citations nix the argument, as, by definition, coverage of the subject in books by definition is not news. The final objection raised is "selective quotes and a POV essay." This is egregious, since WP:DINC, deletion is not cleanup: if anyone has any genuine objections to the material as presented, the forum to raise it is on the TP, and not AfD. XavierItzm (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2018 (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.

Umar haque

Umar haque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Umar haque" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not sure he is really all that notable, in essence he is known for the one thing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frc Rdl 12:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Frc Rdl 12:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frc Rdl 12:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Every major UK newspaper and the BBC have covered him today! the Guardian gave a full page coverage. How much more notable do you need?CanterburyUK (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Generally it needs to be for more then one incident (or in this case crime) WP:CRIME.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven Sure 'generally' that is true. But what about this specific case do you think is not noteworthy? It's not a run-of-the-mill crime. Its hard to believe that convictions for terrorism in the Old Bailey are so commonplace that they are now not notable? On top of that, does not his role in training jihadi children make his case very unique. If you can to so many similar cases on Wiki that 'yet one more' has no value - please feel free.
Anyway, as I already said: it seems clear that the view of all the main media in the UK is that this case is noteworthy.CanterburyUK (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

*Delete. News. A new article with refs all relating to his terrorist crimes. Nothing enduring i can see. Szzuk (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

See comment below. Szzuk (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Szzuk On that basis the Wiki article on Anders Behring Breivik would have been deleted -but that article in fact has evolved over time and is still being edited in the last month: and spun off other pages like Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik.
So it seems ill advised to delete a page so early - sure if in 6 months there is only tumble-weed here - then delete it. But until then, doesn't hurt Wiki to not come up empty if people reading about Haque want to look.CanterburyUK (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course that can hurt--frequently initial coverage is wrong, incomplete, misguided. Correctness may not be your concern, but it is our concern. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you should keep a draft of the article and return it to mainspace at a later time when the enduring nature of the subject has been proven. Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
That is a good option. See, what happens is someone writes something up too soon, and then they say "ah well it may become more widely covered and it would be a shame to delete it." It makes sense, of course, from their perspective. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • There is plenty of coverage but so far nothing to prove that NOTNEWS doesn't apply. That's the problem with people reading the newspaper and writing something up immediately. NOTNEWS should be an attitude shared by all writers. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Drmies See as above -that logic would have applied, and been wrong, for Anders Behring Breivik.CanterburyUK (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
And again you manage to totally miss the point. It is more important that we do things correctly than that we jump on every court case, every criminal, every event. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Drmies Please don't personalise this. Reading 'Wikipedia:News coverage does not decrease notability' suggests that your black-white view of NOTNEWS is not the only view here?CanterburyUK (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
You don't know what my view is. You may have missed the part where I didn't actually say "delete", for instance: you think this is all black and white? We can't think and discuss? I'm not talking about a "logic"--I'm talking about an attitude. And pardon me if I don't have all that much faith in your knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines, given your proclivity to basing content on primary sources and opinion pieces. So "don't personalise this"--I'm going by what I know of your edits. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition - it seems highly likely that there is more news if nothing else then about what happened in the schools and Mosque where he taught children. there are investigations by the Charity Commission and Ofsted in progress: so there will be more to add in coming weeks as those are made public. CanterburyUK (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect per E.M.Gregory's proposal below. WP:TOOSOON/BLP1E at best. Terrorist plots are a dime a dozen. This one was unique and sensational in that it targeted young children in a very direct way but I do not see it, based on current reporting, as 'one for the textbooks'. If there is reporting beyond the initial sensationalism or if later investigation shows it to be a new ISIS strategy, then it would merit an article. As it stands it is a horrific story but not of encyclopedic notability. Jbh Talk 19:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Delete as a BLP on this article's subject but support a redirect of the article to a stub about the event ie not focusing exclusively or primarily on the biography of a single person. Last edited: 23:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Jbh 'Dime a dozen' you say? 'One unique thing' you say? Looking at List of people convicted under Terrorism Acts in the United Kingdom, suggests by it's shortness that dime a dozen is not accurate, wouldn't you say?CanterburyUK (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I am just jaded. I have, literally, two books filled with people convicted and suspected of terrorism - and that just goes up to 2008. The revised version is five volumes. (See: Edward F. Mickolus, Susan L. Simmons: The Terrorist List [5 volumes] (Praeger Security International) Abc-clio, 2011, ISBN ISBN 978-0313374715)
As to 'one-unique thing' most of these self-radicalized plots follow a similar trajectory and from my reading this one was no different until you get to the kids. There was a long term attempt to spread the radicalization (and possibly the conspiracy) to young children. That has not, to my knowledge, been seen in the West. If the case is going to be studied for anything it will be that but until more information comes out we will not know. Maybe they will find ISIS documents suggesting this - like the call to use cars. Then again it might simply be a case of child abuse ie he had access to the kids and roped them into his perversion because he had access ie it was opportunistic rather than strategic. If it was strategic then the case will be covered beyond the 'Oh my God! The children!' burst of press coverage.
I can see how this could come to justify an article, more on the plot than the person, but the coverage is just not there right now. Jbh Talk 22:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE from May 2017 [8][9] - with extremely wide international coverage on trial proceedings and conviction in February-March 2018. WP:BLPCRIME not an issue as PERP was convicted. The crimes themselves are clearly notable per WP:NCRIME given the level of coverage. A rename is perhaps possible, though in this case the name of the perp is the most likely search term (unless this is a wider ring in the schools - in which case a case name would be more appropriate for the group).Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect or rename+repurpose to 2018 London "army of children" plot (some of the content should be moved). If there is support for a rename - I'll switch my keep/rename to rename/keep. I am not averse to keeping the current article, but I think a plot-focused article is more appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • <Delete - Say it after me: continued coverage is not routine coverage. Coverage on charges and convictions are not unique; every single crime such as this will receive brief bursts of reports in the media, but we are not the news, and nothing points to historical significance. Counting refs is not enough when you delve into AFDs on recent events and deserve an actual review of relevant policies. And, on a side note, the article is terribly organized and written. Sure, deletion is not cleanup, but, when crap is the standard for inclusion, crap is all we will get.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    Thankfully, Isis follower tried to create jihadist child army in east London (Guardian, 2 March 2018), Umar Haque, teacher who groomed boys for Isis-inspired terror, searched for transgender prostitutes, The Times (5 March 2018) is far from ROUTINE. WP:RAPID, per the copious coverage coming out in the wake of details of the plot emerging, is also at play.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect Keep as per my proposal below.(changing iVote) an article about a conspicuously notable criminal, meets WP:NCRIME, WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV due to the depth, breadth and ongoing nature of the remarkable nature of the crime of which he has been convicted. Coverage is far from routine, see, for example: The Times: Religious teacher at London mosque 'lured boys to join death squad'; The Guardian: Isis follower tried to create jihadist child army in east London. Article certainly needs improvement, but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that press continues to be all over this story, which looks worse as reporters dig: The Times Umar Haque, teacher who groomed boys for Isis-inspired terror, searched for transgender prostitutes , Toronto Sun: Meanwhile, a Fagin-like ISIS operative who planned a bloody blitz targeting gay nightclubs in London has a secret. Terror teacher Umar Haque, 25, was a frequent flier looking for transgender prostitutes... an avalanche of coverage. Let WP:RAPID be a lesson to both article creator and Nom, taking time to create a better article would have saved time and effort for editors at this AfD, and AfD during which the arguments for delete have rapidly become obsolete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
To satisfy notnews coverage needs to be ongoing, with crime that typically means coverage outside the usual reporting times of arrest and trial. Szzuk (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • ER.... no. Wikipedia routinely creates and keeps articles on WP:NCRIMEs that have just occurred or that have just gone to trail; it is ultimately a matter of meeting WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The problem with this is that many many crimes get coverage at trial time but few are notable. I've never looked closely at NCRIME so what criteria do you think applies? Szzuk (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:DIVERSE & WP:INDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I've just looked at NCRIME and it says we need a 'historic' crime with enduring coverage (notnews), so he fails NCRIME in my opinion. He could still be included according to GNG but the whole article is about his crime from what I can tell so there are no sources to support GNG. You've linked to wp:diverse and wp:indepth which are in the 'Notability Events' guidelines so i'm not sure how they are connected? Szzuk (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS is for really routine stuff (sports announcement and the weather) - not attempting to raise an army of children in London.WP:NCRIME actually does not state "historic" crime with enduring coverage - however WP:EVENTCRIT (which NCRIME is part of) - does. Per WP:RAPID - we are unable at this time to assess future coverage to assess historicity. We do however have wide, international, multi-lingual coverage of this crime - and no reason to assume such coverage will cease, therefore we should err on the side of retaining the article (on the assumption coverage will continue).Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
NCRIME says and I quote The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. I think that is a definite fail there. I think you want to keep on the basis of WP:RAPID that more information may come to light. It isn't impossible there are more crimes from him to come that may tip this into 'Historic' event crime, but I'm doubtful. (I will update my usage of notnews). Szzuk (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Szzuk, with regard to Wikipedia:Notability (events), under which WP:NCRIME falls, it is routine to KEEP NOTABLE events quickly, sometimes even the day they occur. Editors routinely start articles on notable crimes soon after they happen, take a look at Category:2018 crimes by month. It is only necessary that the crime pass WP:GNG. Guidelines like WP:NCRIME are subsidiary to WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep Per WP:RAPID.Meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as there nothing routine in that.--Shrike (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Of course the article covers WP:RAPID as well. Clearly should be kept.BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The coverage is following a typical 'flash' cycle - some initial coverage "Umar%20haque" around Jan 17 when the case was heard, followed by lots of coverage a huge burst of coverage right around March 3 when the verdict come out. That is pretty much the typical "relatively short news cycle" referred to by PERSISTENCE and unless we see some significant coverage outside those time frames it fails that criteria. RAPID anticipates that PERSISTENCE will be met but, even a mere couple of weeks on, it is apparent that it has not. Therefore keeping the article under RAPID is not appropriate although I have no objection to is being saved as a draft which is a recommended alternative to deletion. Jbh Talk 19:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Several of the Delete rationales are quite weak so Keep is the better option.BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • All you did in your !vote was list three guidelines without explaining how they are relevant to this subject. But yeah, the arguments for deletion are somehow "weaker" because you, an editor who is correct just 54% of the time, said so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Says who? You, who are using pointy I don't like it rationale. Please.BabbaQ (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Coverage continues with Sara Kahn, Britain's Lead Commissioner For Countering Extremism, discussing the case Help me find the antidote to fight extremists in our own communities in today's news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    That can hardly be termed 'continuing coverage' it is a brief mention with no new information or analysis. It is, literally, three sentences which, along with three sentences about the prior terrorist-of-the-month, serves as an intro to a story which goes on to discuss neither. Jbh Talk 14:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That can be called continued coverage. Because it is continued coverage. Even if that might not suit your agenda.BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • On top of what Jbh already said, the source is an opinion piece--not the kind of thing we are looking for in an encyclopedic article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment on content, and not users please.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Continuing to expand article, as coverage continues and impact emerges.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    When I first saw your changes this morning, particularly the Independent quote. I thought to myself 'OK, now I can change to Keep'. Then I read the articles and saw they were just one line mentions. What I, personally, would like to see to show this has 'continuing coverage' is at least one source from outside the 'flash converge' time that would be considered significant coverage per GNG ie several paragraphs addressing him and the plot and providing analysis and/or contextualization of the plot. That last part is, for me, very important. Above, I mentioned that the lasting impact of this plot will likely hinge on whether it was opportunistic or strategic. Expanding on that we might see lasting impact if it changes government policies towards Islamic schools beyond the immediate rhetorical cries for 'something to be done'. We could also see lasting impact if this is the genesis of similar attacks or for calls by AQ or ISIS to target children in a similar manner. Jbh Talk 14:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
We are outside of the time frame where RAPID would apply. RAPID envisions "…a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge"(emp mine) not weeks. It also applied to hasty nominations and is not an argument for keeping an article in and of itself. Even with the dozens of articles published we have, really, only a few bare facts about him and the crime. Once the Charity Commission's report comes out there likely be more information.
In any case, I could support an article/stub on the plot/crime itself, under NCRIME, easier than I could support an article on the individual, under CRIME. (The requirement for sustained coverage in CRIME is baked in but NCRIME allows for 'media frenzy' to confer notability on the event. This would also be a textbook case of NEVENT#3.4.) In the case of focusing on the event rather than the person there is not really any meat to the coverage and, in my opinion, it would be most appropriate for it to be a simple stub. Jbh Talk 20:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 20:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposing Redirect to 2018 London "army of children" plot, or similar. User:Jbhunley's suggestion makes a good deal of sense. There were two other individuals involved. This story from The Times is typical of the round of coverage that ran at the time of the trial [Mosque teacher Umar Haque groomed ‘army of children’ for Isis death squad].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    I can support that and have changed my !vote above. Jbh Talk 23:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    I have similarly changed my iVote above. (Golly, a discussion were we are actually working things out, How'd you like that.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    Amazing... Utterly amazing... Face-smile.svg I know I am at the stricter end of the notability/inclusion spectrum but I am always willing to change my !vote even when I have argued strongly for my initial position. Cheers! Jbh Talk 14:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • yeah, I do that a lot, too. People make persuasive arguments. Or something happens to suddenly make a non-notable topic notable. Or someone figures out the right keywords, or the accurate name to search, or....E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pinging all participants @Szzuk, CanterburyUK, Slatersteven, Drmies, Icewhiz, Shrike, BabbaQ, and TheGracefulSlick: It has been proposed that this article be redirected to an article on the event 2018 London "army of children" plot. Jbh Talk 14:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that's a much better idea than a biography. I wish we would be doing this for a lot more of em. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Changed per above. A poorly-written article on the event is a slight improvement over a poorly-written article on a living person. Cannot say notability has been established either way, but that seems to be a secondary issue for these types of subjects -- unfortunately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I could support that move, absolutely. BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I prefer delete of Umar Haque at a second afd. But anyway, go for it, it might turn out ok. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA