Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farooque Ahmed


 * 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. with the discussion tending towards keep. There are concerns about recentism acknowledged by both sides, but the delete !voters were unable to rebut the presumption of notability that accompanied the coverage in the various sources. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Farooque Ahmed

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS wjemather bigissue 16:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/Rename. Both of nominator's concerns are justified, however in the context of international terrorism today this is a distinctly notable subject. However, perhaps a re-focusing and renaming of the article to 2010 Washington Metro bomb plot might be in order? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Approximately 11,000 terrorist attacks occurred in 83 countries during 2009." What makes this one have lasting significance as required by policy and clarified by WP:EVENT? wjemather bigissue 23:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know their definition of "terrorist attack". I'd bet a large proportion of those 11,000 are "lone nutjob with a rusted AK" type events, vs. plots to blow up major metro train stations. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All we know is that they are the US State Department's figures. I think many of these incidents just do not stand up on their own – as you say coverage is usually "in the context of international terrorism today" – and are best discussed in the context of this hightened sensitivity to potential terrorist threat. A brief summary in a general article is more appropriate, which we already have. wjemather bigissue 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep notable high profile criminal/plot with widespread coverage in RS. the applicable policy is WP:N/CA not WP:EVENT since no event occurred. I do not have a problem with renaming the article either though we could have an article on both the plotter as well as the plot. 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt and Faisal Shahzad are an example of substantially similar plot/plotter--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you contradict yourself. N/CA is of course a sub-section of EVENT (and is a guideline not a policy). wjemather bigissue 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * not really. I am just pointing to the most appropriate guideline that applies here.  clearly a criminal conspiracy existed here and a person has been arrested.  This is exactly the sort of High profile crime that WP:N/CA was written for.  the notability is established the diversity  of RS covering this and the depth of coverage. May I ask why you feel that 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt and Faisal Shahzad satisfy the guidelines and this one does not ?? and if you believe that they do not why aren't you nominating them for AfD also now that I have pointed out their existence ??? --Wikireader41 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of terrorist incidents, 2010. Established precedent is very clear that small scale and failed terrorist attacks, even those inside the US, are not notable enough to warrant their own article. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * what established precedent are you talking about?? we have always had articles on similar high profile criminal plots.  see one example above in my comment above about times square bombing attempt and faisal shahzad.  it might also help you to follow the discussion at Articles for deletion/Mohamed Osman Mohamud which is a very similar plot to get a sense of what the community standard is on such plots.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The precedent I am speaking of is the fact that most minor terrorist events and/or their perpetrators have not been considered worthy of anything more than brief mention such as the List of terrorist incidents, 2010, including events in which dozens have been killed and injured, also including events like the May 10 pipe bomb detonation in Jacksonville, Florida. I am already active in the Mohamed Osman Mohamud discussion, and have argued exactly the same point. I also feel Hosam Maher Husein Smadi is a prime candidate for a merge for exactly the same reasons (I think it would be nice if all 3 could be discussed at once in one place since they are very very similar). As far as I can tell of community standards on this issue, it is that acts committed by Muslims inside the US are very important- even if they fail and the attackers had little chance of success to begin with - while any terrorist act committed by a non-Muslim or outside the US is trivial and not worth a separate article, even if large numbers of people died. Apparently the community (judging by these 2 AfD discussions) is comfortable with this standard and believes it does not represent a US-centric, Muslim-fearing POV that is incompatible with WP. I do. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The religion of the terrorist or where it occurs doesn't matter. The potential scale of the event, had it been successful, does. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment 1000%, if "potential" and "had it been successful" are removed. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * well the notability and intense media coverage is due to the "potential" damage this plot could have caused. IMO a smaller plot where only a few people are actually killed is less notable than a plot where 100s could have been.  religion has nothing to do with it.  yes there is undercoverage in WP of non anglophone countries but that does not mean that we stop covering notable incidents in US.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Valid argument. I still disagree, but it is a point worth considering. Mostly I'm just getting tired of the issue, and I'm pretty sure neither article is going to end up deleted anyway. Nevertheless, I still find it very curious that a non-incident where nothing happened - and nothing was likely to happen based on the fact that the alleged perpetrator had demonstrated zero ability to fulfill his dreams on his own - should receive so much attention or warrant an encyclopedia entry. 67.252.54.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete or merge into a greater article of terrorist plots. Agree with IP 67.252.54.152. Cannot possibly meet WP:EVENT in any form since no event occurred. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY, again, since nothing happened. There are people everyday who are plotting to destroy something, or kill someone, and they arent in here as they are not notable. If something had occurred or materials seized or anything to prove that there were indeed people who on XXXX date were gonna blow up the Red Line at the Pentagon or something and they were captured with a briefcase of C-4, then it would be a different story. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He was captured with a bomb in his possession tha the attempted to set off. The fact that the bomb was a dud because he'd been trapped by a sting operation doesn't change the fact that it was there. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 04:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That justs shows that he thought he was doing something, not that he actually did. No event, nothing else notable about him, what else is there really? As I said in the Portland case, we need some sort of standard for this type of story. When nothing really happens, why is it encyclopedic? Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And it was a "bomb" given to him by us to see if he was stupid enough to try it. No one was ever in danger, he would not have been allowed to put anyone in danger and nothing happened but he got himself arrested. This incident and the others like it could be covered just as well in an article like the terrorist attacks of 2010. All you are doing, IMO, is trying to justify giving idiots like these more than their 15 mins of fame. If he had independently put this plot and actually gotten the materials together and failed in the attempt then that would be notable. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Definite keep per Wikireader41--Mbz1 (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2010 (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.