Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Terrorists of Pakistani origin

Sockpuppets

 * One user one vote - User 12.40.163.4 has tried to vote thrice on this page. here  and here .Bakaman Bakatalk  23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Voting issues - In the spirit of fairness, any new votes made by IP (12.40.163.4) must be disregarded, he already voted once. Also, suspiciously this is the only contribution on Wiki that IP address (24.14.91.146) made. Keep a lookout for them and their (possible) socks. Also this is only the second contribution made by IP (156.111.18.77).Bakaman Bakatalk 23:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: I'm surprised you haven't also noticed that most of the "Keep" votes from accounts with less than 50 edits appear to be sockpuppets used primarily for AfD vote stuffing. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Conclusion - This page is a showdown between Keep and Delete socks. It has ceased to be constructive discussion. There are 3 keep socks, and 3 anon socks. Bakaman Bakatalk 23:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's still probably worth giving a potential closing admin a helping hand by identifying suspected socks where possible. Given that some suspected socks have recommended Keep per MLA, I thought I should be clear that I don't believe AfD is a vote and that we should be explicit about what is and isn't a valid recommendation for the benefit of the neutral observer. MLA 14:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DELETE: It is sad to see that even on wikipedia, people argue without facts. Some of the 'keep bullets' do not justify the invalid and weak sources of the article, but rather say that 'keep' because terrorists are from this country. This is hardly an academic argument, and I am strongly opposing existance of such articles, that would tarnish the reputation of wikipedia, as a well informed site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.57.245.11 (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006.

Crystal Ball
I fail to see how this is crystal-ball gazing. The event is current (past two-three days) and therefore is not looking into the future.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't been following the development of the article closely. Here is an example: .  Naveed Afzal Haq was classified as a terrorist even though that has not yet occurred,  and a section was created about terrorists who were "yet to be named officially", both examples of crystal ball gazing. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I see, you got me there. Perhaps delete that one section?Bakaman Bakatalk 01:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been deleted, but the page is still filled with original research. The page lists Hamid Hayat as a terrorist, although I don't think he's ever been involved in terrorism.  There's also an entry for the Heathrow ammonium nitrate case, although this seems to be a case of suspected terrorism, not actual. Ramzi Yousef says he was born in Kuwait, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed says he spent time in Kuwait as well, so why are they listed as Pakistani terrorists?  Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh was born in the UK, and details about his racial "descent" are not mentioned.  It is totally absurd to write articles based on "descent", as this does not impart any kind of useful information. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the fact is that some ethnic groups enjoy senseless killings of people more than others. That's why there isn't a list of "Terrorists of Chinese origin" or "Terrorists of Slovenian origin". Like Kaustuv said, it probably will end as a "no consensus" so we might as well Wikify the article now.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious inflammatory remark there Baka. Since you're on Wikibreak, there isn't much point.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's explore your line of reasoning. Which ethnic groups enjoy senseless killings? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's clear what one of the ethnic groups Bakaman was referring to is. Bakaman, you've made a racist comment. Please take the opportunity to retract it. Clayoquot Sound 04:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but we must be free to discuss ideas. While Bakaman and others (all of humanity in fact) have strong opinions, that doesn't necessarily make them racists. It is common for people to say racist things without fully understanding the implication of their statements, so we must assume good faith.  It has been said that every ethnic group carries ethnic hatred for another group; that is human nature.  And we should take this as an opportunity, a challenge even, to confront this line of thought in the open, in the full glare of the light of inquiry. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, I'm generally in favour of free speech for the reasons you very elegantly expressed. I don't think it's premature to say Bakaman's comment was racist, but sure let's keep the discussion flowing. Clayoquot Sound 05:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it racist? The facts must be racist. Certain people are merely more likely to engage in certain acts. Also, Robcotton has found a plethora of sources to justify the list. Calling someone a "racist" I now see is merely a weapon to discredit logical arguments that are not politically correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting back to the discussion: I'm assuming the answer to my question, "Which ethnic groups enjoy senseless killings?" is "people of Pakistani origin" according to you?  Is that correct?  If that is the case, does that include all the ethnic groups in Category:Ethnic groups in Pakistan or are you talking about a particular group?  Let's be specific.  Saying, "certain people are merely more likely to engage in certain acts" without evidence is saying nothing at all. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD dynamics
Just a prediction, but if I understand the dynamics of AfD right this will be closd as a no-consensus as enough people have "voted" keep. In recent days I have become greatly disillusioned with AfD. Although it isn't a vote, people continue to view and treat it as one. To a casual observe this seems to be split exactly down the middle, and the sockpuppetry certainly isn't adding to the clarity. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like my pessimism was misplaced. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I disagree with half of the closing statement but AfD isn't a vote so the incorrect counting by the admin to determine consensus doesn't matter (I made it 18-17 keep not inc blatant socks). The weight of argument does matter, and that's the half of the closing statement I can accept even if I disagree with the argument itself. MLA 08:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to worry; verified information will eventually be categorized in the appropriate manner, so there will be no loss of data. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)