Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 09:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Firstly the article seems to be of original research. Seven of the sources are used to list known terrorists but none of the sources point that this is a trend to a rise in extremism. It also seems like the user is trying to make the article look credible by listing these known terrorists. The user that wrote this article seems be trying to link this by pointing out it points to a rise in extremism, thus using original research. The user that created this article admits he has "specific interest and expertise" in this article. Article is entirely POV, WP:TERRORIST, synthesis and WP:COATRACK.

Several of the sources cited are either blogs or extremely radical and questionable. The author also refuses to explain why he using only Pakistanis as the subject of this article even though several of his sources also point to other Muslim groups of different nations. Also see the debate on the talk page here → Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ths article is NOT original research. it is an encylopedic article on a critical issue which is a clear and present danger to the world community and USA in particular.  it is an established fact CIA and MI5 are putting substantial resources into monitoring British Pakistanis in particular.  specifically this article is about people who can fly to USA without a visa. This is referenced from credible sources.  Yes I have specific interest and expertise in that area and I believe most if not all wiki editors contribute articles in their area of interest.  please point me to a policy which states that you cannot contribute in the areas of interest and expertise.  the above user has been very incivil and repeatedly violated No personal attacks.  like all articles this article is open to constructive edits from wikipedia community is not perfect and if any contents need to be modified anybody can do so to improve the article. i will also contribute more articles on islamic terrorism in britain and elsewhere as time permits--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you repeatedly accuse me of using personal attacks even though I have done nothing and an admin has cleared me of it. And for the last time, stop trying to change the subject. "which is a clear and present danger to the world community and USA in particular", isn't this orginal research? Your letting your bias get influence you into writing this article.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge - The question to ask is NOT "Is there a high level of Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis"? The question to ask is "Is Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis" a verifiably notable topic under discussion. Merger is an okay alternative, but only if it is the correct merger.  The article hinges on two basic and closely-related points which are notable, verifiable, non-POV.  Firstly, enough British Pakistanis have been convicted of terrorist activity that the intelligence community views British Pakistanis with intense concern.  Secondly, this concern has gotten so much media attention that it has a negative impact of the quality of life of decent, law-abiding Pakistani Britons.  Merging to British Pakistani is a bad option as these subjects would dominate that article if merged.  That article should not be mostly about the extremism issue and to make it so would be really bad.  On the other hand, to create an article called "Islamic extremism in the United Kingdom" (or "Islamic radicalism in the United Kingdom" or whatever) and to let this material form the bulk of it is decent alternative. But don't be fooled; such a merger won't change the fact that among British Muslims, it is Pakistani Britons that are the primary focus of concern in the UK. -Boston (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it defines both sides of the argument? I only see once source citing the cause of "an increase in extremism". Yes, it is notable, but why not allow it to be merged with other specific topics as in with other notable Muslim committees? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As the notability of the topic is indicated, we wouldn't delete the article for advancing one WP:POV moreso than another as that can be corrected. I considered merging but I do see evidence that British Pakistanis are under specific discussion in the manner indicated to an extent that would make merger impractical. The amount of text, and the amount of text there will be when the article is improved, seems to make merger with British Pakistanis problematic. --Boston (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve for reasons mentioned above--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting...first time I've seen a user whose being questioned tries to vote on his own article. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors don't own articles, so it's not his, mine or yours. This isn't a vote, it's an opinion poll, and I believe it is appropriate for a creating editor to opine in bold face as Wikireader41 has done.  --Boston (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologizes on the owning issue. But yes I know there isn't a rule against allowing the creating editor vote on the article, just never seen it done before. Now if you don't mind, back to the topic please. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve because this doesn't seem to be a case of original research, as the British Pakistani community, rightly or wrongly, is often identified in media and government sources as having more extremists, relative to other British Muslim communities, so it does seem to be a legitimate topic to cover, independent of whether the perception is actually a false one or not. It's notable. Rather than being deleted, the article should ideally feature any opposing viewpoints on the matter, where these can be reliably sourced. That would seem to be a more constructive approach, in the true spirit of the encyclopaedia. Lachrie (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the article is composed of a synthesis of sources to advance the view that British Pakistanis are increasingly extremist. Additionally, the article has a fundamental problem in that it uses the word "extremist"; it inherently takes an anti-Pakistani slant by calling them extremist. These points considered, I don't think the article can ever be fixed to be compliant with our policies, and thusly should be deleted. Sceptre (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Radicalism might be a more neutral term, but there's already an article on extremism as a political term, and I'm afraid the reasoning that because the article is discussing extremism among British Pakistanis, it must be inherently anti-Pakistani, just seems fallacious. Lachrie (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards". Doesn't look neutral to me... Sceptre (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some individuals and groups do adhere to non-normative values, so the phenomenon is real, and being real, probably ought to receive coverage. As I say, the term 'radicalism' has less of a pejorative sense than 'extremism', and might be preferred, however. The radicalisation of British Pakistanis in particular has been the subject of media discussion, and an opposing view is presented in the article, so it looks salvageable. The focus certainly isn't the invention of the article's creator. Lachrie (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but under whose standards are they extremist, or radical? It's too murky to use it as an unidentified qualifier. Sceptre (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Islamic radicals would be radical by the standards of the great majority of Muslims, and the wider British community. To say that such a term is relative is not to say that it's arbitrary. It isn't. One of the purposes of the article would obviously be to move towards such a relative definition. The objection to such a relative definition is merely philosophical, and doesn't remotely seem to justify deletion of the article. Lachrie (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * pardon my ignorance but what exactly is the correct term for people who carry bombs into trains and kill innocent men women and children or who fly planes into prominent office buildings ??? I had already avoided the term 'Terrorism'. looks like some people have issues with 'Extremism' also.  what term do people suggest we use ?? I hope it is not 'Martyrs' to describe these people.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Idiots. Think about it: what would we call Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness? Sceptre (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Labelling such people 'militants' or 'radicals' may be euphemistic but it cuts down on sterile POV arguments. If the nature of any associated violence is fully explained the meaning is still clear enough. I'd support moving the article to 'Islamic radicalism among Pakistani Britons/British Pakistanis', or suchlike. Lachrie (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment:The term "extremism" carries an implicit viewpoint, WP:EXTREMIST. I think this is a sign this article has a hidden bias. --J.Mundo (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article's bias is not-so-hidden, and that's why it needs improvement. "Extremism" doesn't necessarily seem like a more severe term than "radicalism", but if that is people's sense then certain we should Move it to "Islamic Radicalism among British Pakistanis". --Boston (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the community thinks that 'Radicalism' is more acceptable dont see a problem with the move. however plenty of precedent on wikipedia of articles using the taboo word 'Terrorism'. Islamic terrorism, State terrorism, United States and state terrorism, Pakistan and state terrorism,  Iran and state terrorism, Religious terrorism,  Christian terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism,  War on Terrorism are just a few examples.  dont think all those names violate wikipedia policy of NPOV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Alleged Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis" might be better. I wouldn't argue against a NPOV article (i.e., not this article, but a more balanced one) with that title.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and what info do you think we include to make it more balanced. I have been unable to find any sources that say that their is no problem with extremism among British Pakistanis and this is all somebodies imagination.  Also would like to remind everyone of WP:DUE that requires we give 'Proportional weight' to all viewpoints and not 'Equal' weight. If ten sources feel this is a problem and two feel it is not then they certainly dont deserve equal coverage in the article.  Any specific suggestions regarding making this 'neutral' would be sincerely appreciated.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment As I have had to remove personal attack filled votes from a sock of a blocked IP and the user has already used 5 IPs in the last 24 hours. Please wait the duration of your original 48 hour block before attempting to vote again here. When you do make sure that you stick to the facts and leave the personal attacks and soapboxing out of it. This AfD is about this article only and whether the topic merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is not a forum for accusations and attacks. Mfield (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No point. It's banned user Nangparbat. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Right Wing Concerns about Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis, because the title of the article should reflect the content. Then transwiki to Conservapedia where it belongs, delete it, and salt.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:COATRACK, WP:WTA, WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST. This pure fear mongering and original research. Beware: In the opinion of so called "experts" a significant number  radicalized British Pakistanis will come to U.S to bomb the crap out of us, because they have ancestral ties to Kashmir and  resentment, did we mention they are Islamic? Common, the CIA  also believed that Saddam had weapon of mass destruction. The fact is that the majority of British Pakistanis are law abiding citizens that rejects terrorism. If the government and other interest groups wants to use racial profiling, fine. But Wikipedia should be a neutral place free of bias. Yes, there is a problem of terrorism and extremism between  us (the world) not only the British Pakistanis and the topic of terrorism is already covered on Wikipedia. --J.Mundo (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think opposing rhetoric amounts to an argument for deletion. Nor does the article qualify as synthesis. A quick Factiva search brings up 58 newspaper articles on the British Pakistani community and terrorism/extremism. It may be a coatrack, but the proper way to deal with that isn't to delete it but to trim excessive bias and add more content to balance it. Lachrie (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * again please if you can make 'specific' suggestions about 'balancing' please do not hesitate to do so. The article does NOT imply ALL British pakistanis have extreme views.  according to the info the estimates are about 4000 people ( some of them probably of non pakistani descent) are roaming around Britain with training in AFPAK.  total community of british pakistanis is a million strong.  CIA is answerable to Barack Obama who not too long ago won a landslide victory in USA and if he did not shut down CIA after hearing this we have to keep that in mind. and BTW he had well defined views about whom to Bomb before he got elected and convinced people that fighting in Iraq was a mistake because the central front in terror war is in Pakistan/Afghanistan.  using past errors of judgement of CIA to negate their current concerns doesnt sound fair and balanced and NPOV.  again what exactly would be the proverbial 'opposite side of the coin' here.  should we include info about British pakistani philanthropists in here ?? somehow I dont think it belongs.--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  —J.Mundo (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight according to your "info' there are 4,000 people training but "some of them probably of non pakistani descent." But the article says that "there is a significant number who are radicalized" out of a million. It seems that this article only carries the point of view of some called experts like Factiva that don't even have a straight answer. This article is synthesis. For example, there is a problem of gangs and crime in the US (more than 4,000 individuals). I'm sure we can get sources that says that the majority are Latino and have a Christian background, yet we don't have an article about Christian extremist among Latinos. Why? Because is POV pushing, because Christianity is not a cause of gang crime and the majority of people of Islamic  faith doesn't have to do anything with terrorism. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * majority of No major religion are terrorists or extremists. The fact is CIA an MI5 are focusing on British Pakistanis in specific and consider them likely source of next major attack on USA.  This is an undisputed fact from multiple credible sources.  are you telling me CIA and MI5 dont know what they are doing  or what they are doing is wrong ???  I see  boatload of POV issues right there.  Why are they not focusing on French Muslims or Christian extremists among Latinos ??  I dont think we should let our personal bias come into this event which is otherwise notable and verifiable.  I am sure as the article 'matures' on wikipedia different editors from different backgrounds will contribute to it and make it more 'Neutral'.  see WP:DEMOLISH and WP:ATD.  the article not being NPOV in its present state is NOT a reason to delete per wikipedia policies--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Whether one thinks "the experts" are correct/well-intentioned/well-informed or whether one thinks they are wrong/lying/racist doesn't much matter. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  If The Times The Guardian and other prominent media outlets are discussing this topic, it's Verifiable and WP:notable. --Boston (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. The rest is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless some source can be brought to show that 'Islamic extremism' is an inherent quality among British Pakistanis. I dont see why this information couldnt go into Islamic fundamentalism (although what this article pretends to discuss is a rise in Islamism among British Pakistanis, wtf does extreme Islam even mean?). Nableezy (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * actually it does not say that the islamic extremism is rising. just that it is getting more attention in recent years.  For the longest time the focus of US policy was wrongly on Iraq but now is rightly shifting to Afghanistan-Pakistan (IMHO).  this article appears to be bigger than the article that you are proposing to merge it into and deals with a much more specific issue.  most people will instantly know what 'Islamic Extremism' refers to though their responses to the word may be different.  could you point me to a wikipedia policy saying that the topics need to only cover 'Inherent Quality' and everything else needs to be deleted.  please see WP:IDL the question here is not whether anybody likes this article or not.  the question really is whether this article meets the wikipedia policies .  like i said not being NPOV (yet) is not a reason to delete an article--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No I cant point you to a policy, but the title of the article suggests that 'Islamic extremism' is a quality of British Pakistanis. Yes this article is bigger, mostly because it is filled with a lot of nonsense. My point on 'extreme Islam' is that the word used to describe this supposed extremist political Islam is Islamism, whereas fundamentalism would aptly describe Wahhabis and some other groups and extremism doesnt really mean anything. And if this about the increasing 'attention' these British Pakistanis are receiving than it should cover that and the title reflect that. And I dont think I said anything that could be taken as WP:IDL, though maybe you should look at WP:LIKE Nableezy (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the title implies whatsoever that all British Pakistanis are extremist but agree if we could find some other language ("Allegations of extremism...?" "...Concerns about extremism...?" "...Investigations of extremism...?") that makes that even more clear without being an awkward title that might be a good thing. But let's do this if it's genuinely an improvement; let's not do it to placate the extremists in our own ranks here on Wikipedia.--Boston (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as it was a response to my comment, I hope you dont include me as an extremist in the ranks of Wikipedia, but as I have been called worse I can let that slide. But to the substance of your comment, based on how it is being described in the AfD then Investigations of extremism would be fitting, but the article does not reflect that either. Nableezy (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your instinct is correct, I absolutely wasn't referring to you. What this debate needs is people like you who can disagree without being disagreeable.  --Boston (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Entirely a POV, WP:TERRORIST and synthesis article. The users Boston and Wikireader41 are fixed on an anti-Pakistan bias (see their edits |1,|2, |3. Wikireader41 even created a hitlist of Pakistani editors. Furthmore they are violating the rules by vote stacking - → Ãlways Ãhëad (20:03, 17 March 2009 )


 * Vote stacking? Unlike the collection of sockpuppets trying to get this article deleted, I have not mentioned this debate anywhere.  These edits (|1,|2, |3) are all by an obvious, disruptive sockpuppet.  If there is one thing that many detractors of this article display with great ability it is the tendency to discredit themselves by angry and blatantly disruptive actions.  As stated, I believe the article is currently somewhat WP:POV and therefore needs to be corrected, not deleted.  I have no anti-Pakistani feelings despite the efforts of a few Pakistani editors to engender them in me. --Boston (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes vote stacking. You clearly (here) told Wikireader41 to vote in favor of the article. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Me telling that editor to how to format his comment defending the article he made is vote stacking? And the outrageous behavior of you and your sockpuppet allies is above the board? Unbelievable. --Boston (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not even going to respond to that but warn you for accusing me of having "sockpuppet allies" --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * this is the second time this editor is making false accusations. Fist he said that 'I had agreed that this is original Research' when I had said no such thing. Initially he tried to get this article speedily deleted clearly violating wikipedia policies and was admonished by an administrator for that.  now he is making wild accusations again .  I agree with above Boston that this article needs to be tagged for POV issues and neutrality and I am also openly asking the wikicommunity to help improve this article .--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * that list by the way is of all sockpuppets of banned user nangparbat and there is no rule against monitoring vandals and rude editors.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet 86.156.208.231 has not been shut down yet --Boston (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then explain to me why you were clearly told to remove your hitlist? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * also this user Always ahead at the top of this article is same as UnknownForEver. let their be no confusion as i think he is trying to create some--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont see how there is any confusion, did he !vote with each name? But can we all not get into a pissing match here, you dont have to argue with every single delete, and you dont have to argue with every keep. Make your points and move on, please. Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * he did tag this article for speedy deletion in clear violation of wikipedia policies and wwas admonished by an adminitrator. He has been showing bad faith about this article --Wikireader41 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTICE: We are currently arguing about editors not about edits. Let's ALL take at least a 60 minute break! --Boston (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as pov and synth. Eusebeus (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve - There is merit to this article. However I wont mind changing the tile to Islamic Extremism in Britain. Scope of the current article is very narrow and may appear condosending towards a particular diaspora of Britain. Sumanch (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources specifically state that the concern is with British Pakistanis not with all the Muslims in Britain. I feel it would be unfair to lump all muslims in Britain together. other muslims in UK are from Bangladesh, India and the Arab countries etc and looks like there is no concern about them.  I was blown away when I started reading up about this subject .  Intuitively you would think Iranian or Iraqis would be considered the big threat to the USA by CIA.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- After reading the article it appears that it in violation nPOV. Most of the references are on British Islamic extremists. Being overwhelmingly Muslims, some of Pakistanis are ‘’Islamic extremists’’. It applies to any other community. Pak-Afghan border being center of this ideology, Pakistan is easiest and natural access point. However, this does not mean extremism is endemic among British Pakistanis or there are no other groups who foment similar ideas. So this can be part of Islamic Extremism in Britain but does not have the merit to be an article on its own.Sumanch (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename per Sumanch, too much emphasis on ethnicity at WP so a more general article topic. It's clearly notable and has more sourcing than nearly any other article at Afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this version without prejudice to somebody writing a neutral, encyclopedic article on the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Material added - In an attempt to change the POVish tone of the article, I have expanded the introduction and have added New York Times criticism of the British Media. To me, the article looks about 50-50 now. BTW, the New York Times and other sources seem to indicate that it is British Pakistanis in particular rather than British Muslims in general that are under harsh scrutiny. --Boston (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Strong and much needed article.--mbz1 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Boston has added several quotes in an attempt to legitimize the notability and lengthen the article but he fails to realize it is against policy. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop; in the kindest way possible I suggest you disengage from this, everything that you want to say has already been said and this is turning into WP:BATTLE for no reason. Nableezy (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this is a matter of statistics: most British Muslims are of Pakistani descent, therefore one would expect extremist Muslims in Britain to be mostly of Pakistani descent. If this article stays, the title and lead paragraph should change - perhaps Muslim Extremism in Britain, could then include some non-British loonies such as Abu Hamza al-Masri, Omar Bakri Muhammad etc who were operational here. The title as it is is an unlikely search term. pablo hablo. 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * that is what it would seem however some of the experts quoted in the sources think that the extremism is more prevalent among Pakistanis as compared to other muslims because of their ties to Pakistan and the frequency they travel back and forth. Not as many terrorist training camps in Saudi Arabia, India or Bangladesh as in Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Afghanistan where the extremists go to school.  Could not find hard statistics though.  Anyway these would be tough if not impossible to generate in a scientific fashion.  I agree that the title needs to be close to a search term which people are likely to use.  That is the only reason that I think 'terrorism' is a better word in the title as it is rightly or wrongly the most common word used to describe such behaviour and most likely search term a person would use if he needed info on this subject--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I suggested but the original editor of the article has an anti-Pakistan view and is specifically targeting Pakistan. There are British Arabs, Indian etc terrorists who could qualify but the editor refuses to admit this fact. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was very concerned about this. However, according to analysis in The Washington Post, "almost every significant terrorist plot uncovered in the U.K. in recent years has some link to a Kashmiri militant group, which is significant because most British Pakistanis are of Kashmiri origin." Numerous other sources indicate the same and even New York Times repeatedly singles out British Pakistanis. --Boston (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That means nothing. Reference several more articles that state this. The one you've cited is a "Guest Analysts" (aka blog).--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * yes it does because Washington Post is a reputable and trusted news source and would not just publish anything on its site without editorial scrutiny.  I suggest you listen to Nableezy  and stay out of this.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Woah woah. Ever heard of being civil? I am questioning the source you've cited (see here). I know SOME blogs can be accepted, they must be confirmed in other sources and that is why I asked you to list other sources that claim this. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * not sure how 'trusted' or 'reputable' it is, better off just saying reliable Nableezy (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * it is in US and most of rest of the world--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Colonel Warden. Might be better at Muslim Radicalization of British Pakistanis. Not using Muslim loses the factor of in what way radicalized; radicalized avoids the 'extremism is bad' current vogue on Wiki, until we all go to radicalization, when 'radical is bad' will grow; Article clearly focuses, and so do its' sources, on the British Pakistanis. ThuranX (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is a radical Muslim? If a title change is up for debate I think it should be 'Islamism in Britain (or UK if you want)' Nableezy (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been said before, all over Wikipedia, when semantic nonsense like this is raised, Radicalization has a specific definition, used by the Reliable Sources, which we, in turn, work from. If a RS discusses radicalization and the extremists which it produces, then we can too. ThuranX (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And academic sources call this 'radical' Islam something. That something is Islamism. It isnt semantic nonsense, it is having precision in the use of language, in of all things an encyclopedia. I dont really care about that point though. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this article breaches basic policy. It is an original research synthesis, essay. What's extreme? That's not a neutral description of anything. There is no way we can write or maintain an encyclopedia article under this topic. Move anything useful to "Islam in Britain".--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Synthesis = 'Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources' I believe multiple credible sources consider Islamic extremism/terrorism/radicalism/whateveryouwishtocallitism a very real issue among British Pakistanis. I dont think I discovered or created or would solve this problem.  Infact Bruce Riedel seems to be the strongest proponent of trying to bring this issue to mainstream awareness.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because "multiple credible sources" say something does not mean it is not POV. Of course, we can record what they say, and what they mean by it, but "extremism" is not a neutral term.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking about Synthesis. POV is not an issue that merits deletion.  sameway if 'Extremism' is not a term acceptable to wikipedia community it can be easily fixed by changing the articles title.--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per mulitiple issues.Violating many policies, policies WP:COATRACK, WP:WTA, WP:NPOV,WP:TERRORIST and wp:or.There is no assurance that it will,not violate wp:coatrack,Wp:Npov and Wp:or.It is just like turning wikipedia into a ethnic background. yousaf465
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. --Ragib (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  —Boston (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's in violation of, at least, SYNTH, OR, COATRACK and probably half a dozen other areas. Skinny87 (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Synthesis. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC
 * Delete as WP:SYNT and WP:COATRACK. The topic can be adequately covered, with proper context and due weight, in Islam in the United Kingdom, British_Pakistanis, Islamic extremism etc.Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Recast and move This topic is only coat rack-ish because it needs a proper title. Islamic extremism in the United Kingdom is a much clearer topic and then the radicalisation of British Pakistanis could form the main thrust of this article. Just because one part of the population predominates, it doesn't mean that the article should be titled as such. Imagine the uproar if we moved Crime in the United States to Crime committed by the working class in the United States and started with "crime is present in all sections of US society but is predominately committed by the working class." This statement would probably be true but this is crux of the matter – titling a topic this way ultimately leads to a POV presentation of the topic. This is why my suggested title is a better way to phrase the topic at hand. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * thanx for your comments. however the central issue is that CIA and MI5 are focusing on British Pakistanis and that is what this article is about.  the issue of requiring visas was specifically directed at British Pakistanis and I am not aware of any thought about requiring all Britons to get a Visa or Even all British Muslims to get visas.  the sources are very clear on who CIA and MI5 were targeting.  We may find this  quasi racial profiling abhorrent but it is an undisputed notable and verifiable fact.  I am sure people who wanted to have issues would have issues with an article titled 'Islamic Extremism in Britain' wanting it to be retitled 'Extremism in Britain" which would then need to be retitled "Extremism in Europe" which would then become 'Extremism on Planet Earth" and so on.WP:COATRACK issue even if it is real ( and I dont believe it is ) is not a reason to delete an article which is otherwise notable. see COATRACK
 * This is the other problem with the article. What you are describing is not adequately summarised in the title. What the CIA and MI5 are doing is merely a response to a phenomenon, namely Islamic Extremism in the UK. The CIA response and US visa profiling is only what is relevant to you. It is ludicrous to suggest that the importance of a whole cutural phenomenon only lies in the fears of the US. You are pushing a US-centric view of the situation. The topic of Islamic extremism in the UK has been the subject of a number of academic studies. The US reaction is only a piece of minor news regarding the whole and is not the central issue at hand, albeit that this is probably the only way you have come across the issue &mdash; through US news outlets. It is a much discussed and analysed topic here in Britain. Stop presenting the view that the US is at the centre of the issue. It is not. I'm rewriting the lead to reflect the real issue at hand. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * excellent. the more the number of editors we have the more balanced the article will be.  I am sorry If I conveyed that the US response is central to this.  I do live in US and get to hear what US media has to say and might be subconsciously biased by that.  I would wholeheartedly agree that this has bigger implications for Britons.  It takes 8 hours to fly across the pond and US security I believe knows before the flight takes off who is on it.  You guys have to live there and travel in the tube with some of these 4000 trained whateveryouwishtocallthem-ists--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * also thanx for bringing up that it is a much discussed and analysed topic here in Britain. that pretty much settles the issue of this article being OR or SYNTH especially since it looks like this topic has been subject of academic studies--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He actually said that 'Islamic Extermism in Britiian' is much discussed and a subject of academic studies, that 'Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis' is a minor part of that. Nableezy (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * so you are implying that Islamic extremism in Britain has a non British Pakistani character. The sources seem to say otherwise.  Also bulk of Muslim population in Britain is British Pakistani.  How do you reconcile these facts ?  I personally would not have a Major problem with renaming the article islamic extremism in britain though I feel it would unfairly include Muslims who are not radicalised something I would wish to avoid.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would suggest you not extrapolate hidden meanings from my words, if you think what I wrote was not clear ask for a clarification, but I did not imply anything. You said that Sillyfolkboy had said extermism among British Pakistanis "has been subject of academic studies" when he said no such thing. That is what I implied, actually that is what I plainly and clearly wrote. Nableezy (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Renaming the article islamic extremism in britain...would unfairly include Muslims who are not radicalised". Huh?? I think this comment speaks for itself and the editor. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "It would unfairly include Muslims who are not radicalised something I would wish to avoid.", using your same logic the current tittle is describing all Bristish Pakistanis as "radicalised." --J.Mundo (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reluctantly, I had to revert Sillyfolkboy's new introduction not because I disagreed but because it didn't rely upon strong inline citations. I did make the intro less America-centric, but if I had left Sillyfolkboy's introduction in place it would attract "Delete" votes.  Let's explore what Sillyfolkboy was saying and, as much as we can, introduce that content into the intro with better citations. One definite improvement is the appearance of the unambiguous statement "most British Pakistanis are law-abiding citizens and only a minority have extreme political views" in the intro. --Boston (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The citation to the study was a start and it fully backed up the info preceding it (I assume Unknown just didn't bother to read the report; it was a summary of p.58). However, the the study related to British Muslims rather than British Pakistanis specifically. Do you see how the title is denying the use of perfectly applicable sourcing? Also, I think mentioning the War on Terror is an absolute must for the lead, citations can be found later. British Pakistani radicalism is obviously somewhat related to the British military presence in the middle-east and I don't think we need any academic sources to prove that. It's verging on common knowledge. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Canvassing - When the opinions are finally tallied, please note as seen here both User:UnknownForEver (aka → Ãlways Ãhëad) and multi-sock puppet blocked editor Nangparbat (User:81.158.129.140, etc. etc. etc. etc.) have participated in canvassing with a notice at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics advising "get his article nominated for deletion." User:81.158.129.140 placed the notice and → Ãlways Ãhëad replaced it after an admin removed it. This is the canvassing I know about.... --Boston (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you DARE try to accuse me of doing that. That post was made BEFORE this debate. Go look at the times before you come back. I didn't realize that it was an admin and didn't check to see if the user was banned. Stop trying to make excuses to avoid getting this un-encyclopedic article deleted. I violated no rules. You, yourself, specificlly told Wikireader41 to vote, here, thus VOTESTACKED. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Me telling that editor to how to format his comment defending the article he made is vote stacking? And the outrageous behavior of you and your sockpuppet allies is above the board?  Unbelievable. --Boston (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've warned you to lay off the personal attacks, now I'm giving you a warning. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Canvassing is happening on the internet for this article. I found this on a forum. Sumanch (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that → Ãlways Ãhëad had in Bad Faith nominated this article for speedy deletion an act that was considered VANDALISM by an administrator who reverted it. See here --Wikireader41 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 

Before you blame anyone else look at your vile hate you have been warned off your racist slander before by nishkid 86.156.209.202 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First of, stop trying to make this into a personal attack debate aganist me. This is about the article NOT me. Secondly, the admin DID NOT consider it as vandalism but instead suggested I do AfD because it was sourced. And again, Boston and Wikireader41 need to stop making this into an attack discussion aganist me. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the edit summary when the administrator reverted you. he stated that you had committed VANDALISM.  this is not an accusation.  It is a fact.  pay attention to the edit summary written by the editor when he reverted your tag for speedy deletion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nomination for this AfD gives no grounds for deletion, but instead just mentions that there are some editing disputes. AfDs are not the way to settle editing disputes. The subject is clearly notable, and the article should be kept and improved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've specifically stated that POV, WP:TERRORIST, synthesis and WP:COATRACK and the biased editor are the ground for deletion. There is no "editing disputes", where did you get that idea from? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problems you have mentioned are just editing problems, and they are not valid grounds for an AfD. This nomination for deletion is apparently just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The subject is WP:notable. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Title is non-NPOV to begin with (you might get away with "militant" -- though this more specific and precise term would of neccessity narrow the scope of this article, something i doubt the creators would like). "Exremism" is just far too subjective. (should we have a "moderation among British pakistani's article?" Of course not). There is currently a section in the British Pakistanis article with the title "Allegations of Extremism" which seems about right. In general, this is a content fork designed to disparage. There are of course articles about British Pakistani's of a nasty disposition like Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh about Islam in England and more relevantly, perhaps, Islam in Pakistan and this seems like a fork from those. In short, this article seems designed to identify and point to the "extremists" (says who, of course) among British Pakistanis in a disparaging fashion, and seems to serve no useful encyclopedic purpose (criminals like Mohammad Sidique Khan have their own articles).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are at least two citation that are headlined and substantially about this topic. A retitle discussion and a possible merge to a broader subject should be discussed on the article discussion page. Cleaning up any POV is an editing issue, but the notability of the subject is clear from the sources. That's the basis of our guidelines and while my initial instinct was to recommend deletion, we aren't supposed to be censoring based on subjective crtieria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have suggested that the article be renamed to fit a more appropriate topic but the two primary editors are baised. Boston is just randomly trying to keep the article because he holds a personal grudge aganist me. Notice from his talk page, he removes everything that I state. Wikireader41 is a anti-Pakistani editor who has a history of POV and bias. Hes also been banned for doing that before. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to set the record straight. I have NEVER been BANNED.  This is another violation of WP:NPA from this editor who has Vandaized this very article before.  Use Nangparbat is the one who is BANNED for life and his sockpuppets have repeatedly Vandalized this article pushing a Virulent Pro Pakistani view.  It would be prudent for any respectable editor not to associate with Banned users.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, go read the policies before trying to link me to random on you find. You've been blocked before clearly here. Don't turn this into a personal attack. Stick to the topic. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and you think the word BLOCKED means the same as BANNED on wikipedia. you clearly said BANNED which was a FALSE ALLEGATION.  I will accept an unconditional apology though.  Nangparbat is the one who is BANNED.  You are the One who Has VANDALIZED this particular Article once.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and here is you arguing on nangparbats behalf so that he can vandalize this article again remember you are known by the company you keep and people you advocate for--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and here is an administrator giving you a stern warning about your Vandalism of THIS article and commenting on your past history --Wikireader41 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  —→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment The primary editors have cited several sources that have exaggerated claims or are falsely stating from the source.
 * He further stated ‘The 800,000 or so British citizens of Pakistani origin are regarded by the American intelligence community as perhaps the single biggest threat environment that they have to worry about.’ This statement concludes that the ENTIRE Pakistani community in Britain is a threat.
 * Lashkar-e-Taiba which is a banned militant organization based in Muridke, Pakistan which is listed on U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations also recruits actively among British Pakistanis because they have British passports. No where in the article did I find the statement that the organization was located in "Muridke, Pakistan ". The source here also contradicts the my previously pointed out statement. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Islamic extermism isn't a proper noun so the title of the Islamic Extremism article and this one should be made lower-case. Secondly, as the Islamic extremism article is so short, a merge there might be a good idea. Or a retitle to Islamic extremism in Britain? Just some ideas I had. Good luck... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete before we have a precedent justifying endless articles on negative stereotypes of various groups around the world. If this is kept, the term "Extremism" must go, or at least be defined.  Extremism can mean many contradictory things, as it literally, it just means going to extremes.  A true pacifist in a total war is an extremist.  A true vegan amongst meat eaters is an extremist.  Many people who are faithful to a religion consider themselves extremists, but don't go around murdering people.  The article is just a good excuse to attack people.  Any encyclopedic content that exists here could work equally well elsewhere.  --Rob (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We have numerous articles on discrimination and stereotypes. Your argument sounds like a good case for a retitle and careful editing, but doesn't address the notability established by reliable sources with substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to articles discrimination and stereotypes in general. I'm opposed to articles like this, which advance a very particular bias, against a particular group, which is inherent from their scope.  I suppose one could fix the article by changing the title and all of the content.  Of course, we could stop all article deletion, by simply retitling and changing all of the content of the article, and fixing scope.  But at some point, if you have to change everything, you aught to just delete it.  People keep saying it can be fixed, yet it's not fixed.  There's still no definition of the word "extremism".  What's it mean?  Is the article to talk about all extremism.  --Rob (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is this is a deletion discussion and the notability of the topic is clear. The issue is titling and editing. I'm ready to boldly merge it, but doing so on a controversial topic before the AfD is resolved is often considered inappropriate. There is clearly substantial coverage of the issues involved in this subject, so we have to figure out how to deal with it appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Inherently violates WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:COATRACK. Title (and the subject really) fails WP:NPOV and really needs to be changed. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it were conceding that there are problems with WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:COATRACK, those are editing problems which are correctable and should be discussed on the article talk page, and not here because they are not grounds for an AfD. I understand that there are people who find the subject offensive, but that can not change the fact that the article does establish WP:notability. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they're not editing problems. When the subject is so non-neutral as to make compliance with WP:NPOV impossible (and thus making the article's subject a failure of WP:SYNTH), then it should be deleted. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 18:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and pay attention to this post by a Nangparbat Sock.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which I reverted right after it was posted. On top of that, it was sent to me after I had made my !vote above, so any canvassing here is irrelevant in respect to me. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as noted above by Rob "before we have a precedent justifying endless articles on negative stereotypes of various groups around the world." - a bit like say Race and crime. That the article does have sources is true but these I think should be in the British_Pakistani article which has an Allegations_of_Extremism section. Allegations of extremism, social issues and crime amongst particular communities should be adequately noted in that particular article, otherwise as far as I can see it ends up being a coatrack and probably a honeypot to all those of conflicting POVs. Pahari Sahib  12:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A merge to British Pakistani sounds like a good idea. It should be discussed on the article discussion page.  That's another good argument against deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing. This sort of thing is called WP:canvassing, and is strongly discouraged by WP policy. Pahari Sahib clearly understands that because this message was immediately removed from his talk page....while, nevertheless, responding to the canvassing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Err nope Malcolm both parties put messages on my page, don't try and judge my intentions or accuse me of acting against policy. I didn't immediately respond either. I carefully read the arguments for and against before adding my thoughts. I suggest you read Canvassing again - it is a behavioural guideline for those doing the canvassing.
 * Pahari Sahib 18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Malclm Schosha, if you had done some more research, the IP's comment on Pahari Sahib's page was page BEFORE this page was even created so next time try laying off the blame-game trying to accuse editors of wrong doing. Try to learn some good faith --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Canvassing, etc. - While this page has been heavily canvassed, please avoid implying that blame should fall on those who were canvassed. While it is likely the canvassing got the desired results, we can't tell who arrived here because of it and who arrived here through other clicks.  Removing the pathetic rantings of blocked lunatic User:Nangparbat's sockpuppets (of which [these are just a few of the dozens she has made) from one's talk page (or from this page or from anywhere else) is something that any self-respecting editor would do, so please find no blame there either.  We should feel appreciative of everyone who has opined here in [[WP:AGF|good faith]] and civility whether or not they may have arrived due to circumstances which derail the fairness of the process. In  related note, → Ãlways Ãhëad, your readiness to scream accusations of personal attack and bad faith assumptions at anyone who doesn't agree with you is something you should grow out of.  I value your opinion here, please try to return the respect shown to you. --Boston (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can write in bold for no reason too. I admit that blocked user is annoying and should be dealt with. You have been asked to be civil and show good faith so do not lecture me on how to behave properly. And Boston would you repeatedly stop changing the topic of this debate for your personal gains? This article is up for deletion, not for you to come here and tell me how to behave. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (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.