Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajeel Shahid


 * 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   keep. A compelling case is made that this article is flawed and in need of some serious fact checking, if not a total rewrite. However, the argument is not so strong as to merit outright deletion of the article, as there is also evidence that this individual is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. As always, arguments with a basis in Wikipedia policy are given more weight. Additionally, the subject's objections to how they are portrayed can be taken into account and anything improperly verified should be removed, but article subjects cannot dictate wether or not they are covered here and cannot control articles about themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sajeel Shahid

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As per a persons complaints, person claims to be the subject but there is no verification. I support the subjects statements in this diff as being a fair interpretation of the content about him in the three externals as mostly weak unverified statements - subject is clearly of quite low/minimal notability if you remove the vaguely sourced claims. -   You really can  17:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I request greater respect for WP:BEFORE. There are lots more references than that included in the article.  The individual who claims to be the subject of this article, who asserts the article is not fair to them, acknowledges being part of Al Muhajiroun until 2002.  Well, if nominator had checked for references, he or she would have found that Sajeel Shahid, the Manchester University graduate, gave an interview in 2001.  I suggest that the interview he spoke supportively of muslims from Britain who had traveled to Afghanistan to volunteer to help the Taliban.  Some might suggest this is "one event".  "One event" doesn't preclude a separate article -- if the event is significant enough.  I suggest the roles the interviewee openly acknowledges he played in this interview rise to sufficient significance that it would justify a separate article.  However, one event is moot -- as the individual who claims to be the real world Sajeel Shahid acknowledges running a controversial madrassa.  This is also covered by well sourced.  So this is two events.  Although the individual disputes that they went underground so they would not have to testify at the trials of associates, this contradicts our WP:RS.
 * mirror
 * There are lots of other references. I'll continue to list them here.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As above there are multiple references that explicitly state Sajeel Shahid played a leadership role in the travel of Islamic militants from the UK to Pakistan, to fight beside the Taliban. As above, many of these references were drafted in 2001/2002 -- when, according to the note on WP:BLPN the individual who asserts this article is about him acknowledges he was a leading member of Al Maroundin.  Our references describe Shahid variously as one of the group's founders, and as the "Emir" of the group.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I was going to edit this but withheld it as the subject appears to have raised an issue.Hence added only ref.As per WP:NOTCENSORED and also WP:BEFORE ,we cannot remove articles just because the subject requests it ,negative Biography is allowed if well sourced .The subject is notable .He is described as as  founder or Emir of Al-Muhajiroun in Pakistan has been done so even in court. .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – The first, although published a reliable source, describes evidence offered in court. In court, a party might offer evidence that the subject is a grapefruit. It couldn't be used to present any assertion as fact in an article, and would be generally inappropriate as a WP:BLP source. At any rate, it's tangential coverage of the subject at best and doesn't contribute to notability, if any. JFHJr (㊟) 21:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks added more references including BBC ,The Dawn and several others including those posted below by me, which not describe the subject but also quote him..This article clearly passes WP:RS ,WP:BIO and WP:GNG. DGG rightly says below,if the subject wants to be deleted it has go through WP:ORTS after identifying the subject note privacy is also maintained there.  Rather than vote with WP:SPA. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep well sourced article about a notable Islamist.  Seems like the subject is asking for deletion based on WP:IDL.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete -- at best this is WP:BLP1E, and I'm not at all convinced that even the 1E is notable. None of the sources used on this article are substantially about the subject -- instead they are articles mainly about other topics that mention him once or twice.  In my view he certainly fails WP:BIO and also fails WP:GNG.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Mentioning of Arabic newspaper without any evidence or reference or names, makes story of safe house unrealistic and unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornfree1968 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)  — Bornfree1968 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete -- Some articles mentions him an organizer, others say member, some say amir, some say leader of another movement called harakatul khilafah. Some articles point at other names as leaders of almuhairoun in Pakistan. All these create suspicion whether the subject indeed was or was not a founder or leader of almuhajiroun in Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheenzac (talk • contribs) — Shaheenzac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete -- The reference of article in daily express, is sorry too say filled with cheap selling tactics. Accusations without any proof. Firstly mentioning a name in court does not constitute evidence unless evidence is establish on it. Secondly words like "alleged" adds more ambiguity to the whole story. We cannot make someone a public figure on "alleged allegations".
 * Not every member of a group supports the group on all issues, Al-muhajiroun has been around since 1983 and to associate all its members support the views of qaeda is not right, especially when there is no evidence that the subject has ever made any such statement of support to the voilent groups, thus to try to allege this link with the subject is not fair representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgesearch2 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)  — Knowledgesearch2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Since many verifiable reliable sources describe Sajeel Shahid as one of the group's leaders, or one of its founders, it is completely appropriated to cover those assertions. Since Sajeel Shahid was directly quoted supporting al Qaeda's attacks on 2001-9-11, it is completly appropriate to quote or summarize his statements.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since many verifiable reliable sources also describe others as group's leaders in Pakistan, if you just google, you will see, hence how can a party have so many leaders in one year. Also Many sources decribe him as just a member and even that uptill 2001,
 * There is no statement in any press where Sajeel Shahid has been quoted as supporting Al-Qaedaas attacks on 2001-9-11 or another support of them. Knowledgesearch2 (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete -- The sources are not accurate e.g. first Article mentions of people going to pakistan, not of him inciting people to go there. it is just stating reality. it is being used as a note that he is inciting people which is not fair representation, secondly it also mentions him having a computer science degree from manchester university which is also not accurate. Both these points go on to show that the article is based on unverified sources and more of heresy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirbutt2009 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)  — Amirbutt2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - nom does not make a case for deletion. Article is sourced, notable and verifiable. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 10:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the nomination is less important than participants' reasoning as to whether the subject is notable. Your assertion that the article is notable (and I assume you mean the subject is notable) is too conclusory to be of much help here. Sources as they exist in the article at any given time are irrelevant – we look outside the current state at any available sources (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). Also, verifiability, while pertinent to content inclusion, is mostly irrelevant in deletion discussions. JFHJr (㊟) 21:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please we go by Verifiability and Reliable sources over Truth.In response to what you have and another says There is substantial coverage of the subject.In addition to the UK press.Note the papers not only describe him as the Emir but also quote in the article. which is notable and him substantiallydifferent National newspapers will not describe as a Emir and a quote subject  in the article.This passes Duck and Sniff test.Further Several books describe the subject by name and as member of Al Muhajiroun  The Age Australian newspaper The Age not only describes  Sajeel Shahid, their emir but also  quotes the subject as saying '' Pakistanis respect us because we have given up the comforts of life in Britain to struggle for Islam,"

San Francisco Chronicle Describes Sajeel Shahid, the Lahore group's "emir," It also quotes him as saying "Spain was a Muslim nation once and must be again," further Daily Times Pakistan Also describes him as the Amir and attributes him as saying  “The (Caliphate) system has saved Muslims for 1,400 years and it will do so again,” Further his arrest generated a lot of interest his cause was taken by various parties including the Tehrik-i-Insaf  led by Imran Khan and it was covered the Pakistan press including the The Dawn.Please note thousands were detained in post 9/11 crackdown in Pakistan  but his case amongst the few to figure prominentlyThe Asia Times covers his case. As he is called he is Emir or a leader of  Al Muhajiroun  by  multiple WP:RS sources  he is notable.In addition to this several other sources describe him as such.Further his arrest was highly highlighted as he is Dutch citizen and Dutch consulate got involved .We have not got the coverage from Pakistan regional press here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Weakly claimed details in articles only minorly addressing the subject in the articles. - as I nominated for the person claiming to be the subject on their request I shall have a vote also -   You really can  14:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – Most coverage is in fact not in-depth, but mostly trivial and passing. The best example of in-depth coverage is this; I wouldn't go so far as to include microscopic, context-free coverage as substantially about the subject because it's not substantial coverage period. Even aggregating the trivial mentions, WP:BASIC is not met. Furthermore, trivial, non-noteworthy mentions are used to support the majority of the prose, which to me indicates a rather clear WP:BLP problem: if it's noteworthy, it'll have rather more substantial coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 19:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I initiated a thread on WP:ANI triggered by my concerns over those who voiced delete opinions making extensive, and IMO questionable, excisions to this article. I didn't name the name of this article or this afd as this is a general phenomenon.  I encourage everyone who thinks any article, including this article, is so irredeemable it merits deletion to explain their concern in the afd, and not engage in editing the article itself.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- if there are problems of sourcing for contentious claims here, I will delete the material in question regardless of my participation in the AfD. By all means, go ahead and make that an issue at ANI if you think it best.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If the subject has objections, the proper course is OTRS, where we can validate that he is in fact the subject. Here, anyone can say they are anyone. Looking at his complaint, if indeed it is he, the essence is that he used to be very active in the group, but no longer is. This may be a matter of interpretation, but the necessary evidence may well be private, and OTRS is the only fair way to deal with it.  DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I just cleaned up some BLP violations, , . Some of them make me really wonder if the BLP had been misused to deliberately smear the subject. 41.202.238.142 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * * Comment -- i noticed that a user Geo Swan added unreliable references to the BLP to verify negative information. I removed the reference a second time. Editors should be far more careful about referencing negative information in BLP's. That could bring trouble for us. 41.202.238.142 (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2012 (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.