Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Siddiqui (German)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  22:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Ahmed Siddiqui (German)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Related to single event 2010 European terror plot. Fails WP:1E1BIO. Störm  (talk)  18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I redirected the article. Other people edited it, but I am the only person who worked on what it actually said, its intellectual content.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * that is sort of bypassing the AfD discussion, isn't it? I guess people can look in the history, but now that the discussion is open the more proper thing to do is to wait for the discussion's outcome, is it not? At WP:EDITATAFD it says "You should not turn the article into a redirect." I'm not at all invested in this, but I might vote if I did not have to look through the history. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with ThatMontrealIP that a redirect after AfD was out of process. I have reverted the redirect. I think once we are here at AfD the community will decide merge, redirect, delete, keep, etc. I have no opinion on the article at this time. Lightburst (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD says:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move.[3] If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request.
 * If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move.[3] If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request.


 * }
 * I am the author of "the only substantial content of the page". As per CSD I would be authorized to call for its speedy deletion.  By longstanding tradition G7 would supercede this AFD.  I ask  and  if they honestly think that while a G7 would be honoured, I am not authorized to redirect to 2010_European_terror_plot?  Nominator explicitly mentioned  2010_European_terror_plot in their brief deletion rationale.  I suggest that redirection to 2010_European_terror_plot is what we should assume nominator implied should happen.  If they actually thought there was a justification for deletion of the article's revision history their nomination should not have explicitly mentioned a redirection target, and should have offered a justification for deletion of the article's revision history.
 * WRT EDITATAFD -- not familiar with this section. May I point out what it says in its 4th point, about redirection:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * "If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator)".
 * "If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator)".


 * }
 * I did say I redirected it. Since mine was the first comment, it was both first and last comment.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Geo Swan and the article should be redirected per WP:SNOW. Störm   (talk)  08:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It takes more than two snowflakes to make snow. The article does not belong to you or to the main contributor. Please stop redirecting the article until the process completes. Two editors have questioned a redirect. ThatMontrealIP and myself. Now that we are here we need to let the community decide. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The EDITAFD quote above (If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page...) is actually talking about page move, not redirects.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I read number 3 in EDITAFD You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community. Perhaps I misunderstood the redirect prohibition, however IMO it is always better to get consensus. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, we're on the same page there. It's confusing as EDITAFD mentions two things not to do: redirect pages (the part you quoted) and move pages (the thing GeoSwan quoted). It's all good now though as we were able to have the discussion and this is headed for delete.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLPCRIME criteria. Lightburst (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Keep for now passes WP:GEOSCOPE Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:GEOSCOPE is a section of WP:Notability (events), not WP:BIO. The subject, Ahmed Siddiqui, is covered exclusively in relation to a single event. WP:BLP1E applies here. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , what does "for now" mean? The US claims that there was a 2010_European_terror_plot wasn't that ten years ago?  After the US wrung these confessions from him, in a torture prison, they repatriated him to Germany, where German security and law enforcement officials debriefed him.
 * What has happened since? Nothing.  There were no reports German prosecutors ever charged him with anything.  There were no reports he ever tried to sue any US officials.  There are no reports he tried to go fight in Syria, or that Germany prevented him from going to Syria.  There are no reports he ever tried to commit a crime, after his repatriation.  There are no reports he tried to write a book, or an op-ed.
 * So, seriously, if there have been no new events, in almost ten years, what does "for now" mean? Whatever his notability is now, that's it.  His notability is very unlikely to change.  Speculation on unlikely events that might change his status lapses from WP:CRYSTAL.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Per my use of WP:GEOSCOPE - the event is: the arrest for the plot to plant bombs in European cities which received international coverage. Additionally see WP:NTEMP notability is not temporary and does not require lasting coverage. Keep for now means I was tired of the rush to delete and or redirect before consensus. The right result will happen after a few more editors come along. See below ...one of them agrees with you. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. BLP1E isn't the only problem. WP:BLPCRIME also applies.  This is a biography about a terror suspect 's arrest and reported confession.  There's barely enough to sustain an event article about the alleged terror plot when essential facts can't be verified in a visible fashion. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete there is not enough here. He plotted, he confessed... and now? There is inadequate coverage to assess notability, which means GNG fail. BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME also apply, as Gene93k points out.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT and WP:CRIME. Much of the sourvces online are Rightwing blogs and similar junk. It's impossible to search online because of how common this name is; in addition to the American kid with an article, there are (possibly notable) banker/lawyer, a founder of Teach the World, and an IT guy with similar names. It's not my job to fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not significant on his own. werldwayd (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2020 (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.