Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of al Qaeda terrorist suspects still at large


 * 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.  Kurykh  06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

List of al Qaeda terrorist suspects still at large

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Unencyclopedic. The article documents some names who are suspected with al-qaeda connection. No need of this, if necessary there al-qaeda connection can be mentioned on the respective articles on the respective people. As such numerous articles can be created like List of suspected LeT members, List of suspected drug dealers, list of suspected Hizbul Mujahideen members, List of suspected Hamas members etc. etc. And also this info can be mentioned in Al-Qaeda article, no need to create a separate article on suspected members only. Hence I am nominating this unencyclopedic article for deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover this aricle could become really article if the title was List of al-Qaeda members, this is surely not. This info can easily go in Al-Qaeda page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Wow, not sure if a list of members would fly, and the phrase Don't Stuff Beans Up Your Nose comes to mind.  It isn't like they carry membership cards.  wp:attack becomes a serious issue if you "accuse" someone of being a member.  Pharmboy (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with you. They don't carry membership card. It is the law enforcement agencies who label someone as a member of a "terrorist" organisation based on some "concreate evidence". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for so many reasons, but Original Research comes to mind, as does Point of View issues (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, blah blah blah) *plus*... how do you source this? Get list from US govt. only?  UK?  UN?  What if they don't match?  The article doesn't even address what makes it notable (do we 'assume' why it is notable?) or define 'at large', 'wanted' or any other issues.  It is just a list of people they made up or found somewhere with no context to give it meaning, ie: non-encyclopedic list.  Pharmboy (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares if they don't match? I don't know of any government out there saying "These and only these people we have mentioned are at-large Al Qaeda members".Noroton (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per comments above. -- Redfarmer (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as it's unsourced and less useful than what we already have in the AQ article. It might be keepable as a properly linked subarticle if each name were sourced and annotated for their alleged involvement, e.g. "suspect in USS Cole bombing". The current title is wrong, though. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia is not a internal counter-intelligence department that it will make list after list on suspects. This is an encyclopedia, such info cannot become an encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but Wikipedia has articles on the important subjects that also happen to be counter-intelligence topics. A list of people who want to commit mass terrorism and belong to an organization that can do it is, in fact, notable. And encyclopedic. And sourceable. Reliably. Not rocket science. Noroton (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This info can easily go into AQ article. Name of 10 suspected members do not deserve for a separate article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I voted "redirect/merge", but it would surprise no one who's paying any attention at all if there aren't 100 names that could be reliably sourced. If the list included a little information on each one, it could not fit in the AQ article, and "redirect/merge" allows for quick re-establishment of this article if some editor wants to put some time into this important subject.Noroton (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, redundant to the AQ article.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Also as per WP:HARM there may be other people with the same or similar names and this could affect them personally. This article should be removed quickly.--Pmedema (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per arguments above.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to Al Qaeda Despite some of the comments here, the subject is obviously encyclopedic: It is a serious topic that can easily be sourced to indictments, statements by government sources and to comments made by the subjects themselves and reported in the news media. Not only is Al Qaeda important, but the people who are in Al Qaeda and at large are especially important to readers seriously interested in learning more about terrorism. The comments above strike me as less about whether the topic is suitable than about whether the concept of terrorism is something we should think about at all. Sorry, scary subjects can also be encyclopedia articles. Sometimes they're especially suitable for an encyclopedia. I'm not voting to keep for the sole reason that the article is so short, unsourced and could easily be folded into the Al Qaeda article.Noroton (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Per BLP, WP:NOT a guide to law enforcement, and a whole boatload of probably NPOV issues from an article and title of this nature. Lawrence Cohen  23:04, 3 January 2008 (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.