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 TO DELETE. The count was 27-25 keep, counting 2 Redirect comments and 1 Merge All comment as Deletes. With this many commentators, raw totals take on greater importance in determining consensus, in my opinion. No way am I going to close this as a Delete with that many Keep comments. On the other hand, neither numbers nor strength of argument is enough to make this a clear straight-out Keep. Herostratus 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to Multi-Delete, but I want this to be an AFD for all the suspects. It should be deleted because, while notability has been established, thats all we have. If any extra details become available they should be dealt with within the article on the plot. Havinf this one line of text pages for all the suspects serves no obvious purpose. Irishpunktom\^talk 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• per nominators' wishes, all the suspects now nominated:

1. Abdula Ahmed Ali
2. Cossor Ali
3. Nabeel Hussain
4. Tanvir Hussain
5. Umair Hussain
6. Assan Abdullah Khan
7. Waheed Arafat Khan
8. Osman Adam Khatib
9. Mohammed Usman Saddique
10. Ibrahim Savant
11. Amin Asmin Tariq
12. Shamin Mohammed Uddin
13. Waheed Zaman
14. Shazad Khuram Ali
15. Umar Islam
16. Waseem Kayani
17. Abdul Waheed
18. Assad Sarwar
19. Tayib Rauf
20. Rashid Rauf

Ohconfucius 03:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article will need to be kept to document current event. I think someone trying to blow up almost ten planes and causing the aviation industry in Britain to implode is notable enough. Dev920 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As only being notable for the event, and since the article tells almost nothing, the same content can be provided in the event article. StuffOfInterest 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn clutter --Tim1988 ^talk 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing useful released about the plotters yet. This page may be useful at some point in the future, but not at all now. --Fxer 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Innocent until proven guilty. So far, we have no info on these people, bar one, but nothing in Abdul Waheed's background makes him notable in his own right. Ohconfucius 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only one I'm working on and know about is Abdul Waheed, and it's turning into a nice article. He's notable, of course, for the arrest, and in addition his sister, Heather Stewart-Whyte, is a famous supermodel, and his late father worked for the Conservative Party, both of which make his story more interesting that it would otherwise be. It's well-referenced, and there are no grounds for deletion within the policies. Bear in mind that more information is likely to become available about all these individuals; if charged, then via the courts; if not charged, then probably via them telling their own stories. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having a model as half sister and a politician for a father aren't notable points, even that article boils down to one item of "being arrested", which is not worth an article in itself. I would also dispute that it's well referenced, I do not regard "a newspaper reported that an unnamed neighbour said" as very reliable, for example, expecially as WP:BLP required "high quality references". Also, "more information is likely" is very crystal ball. Failing notability, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP concerns are all grounds for deletion based on policy. Regards, MartinRe 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The notability of all of these individuals has been established, they tried to arrange a major terror plot that has been extensivly covered by media all over the world. These articles are obviously justified.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any details for the suspects should be placed on the plot page, not in individual articles. --Stretch 07:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AfD nom is too soon, but if stubs don't become articles within a month, nominate again. —Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into a list and split off notable individuals later.--Peta 08:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply being arrested for questioning about a terrorist plot does not give any person instant status as an international figure who should be covered by an encyclopedia. Whether they are innocent or guilty, such notoriety is inappropriate. Ming the Merciless 10:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - as per Slimvirgin. --Leifern 10:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep so long as they're policed enough to keep them strictly factual. There names are all over the news, which should be notable enough. --Joshdboz 10:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SlimVirgin. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SlimVirgin.--Coffeesuds 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These people are notable terrorists.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Abdul Waheed and any others about which something substantial is known. Given only a name and age, delete or redirect to 2006_transatlantic_aircraft_terrorist_plot per Peta. A name mentioned in the news may be notable but it doesn't necessarily merit a separate article. Gimmetrow 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of these men have more than a line of text to say about them. Unless further information is released about them, we are better off with the list of names on the terror plot page. (which in fact currently provides more information than all of the individual pages put together) --KPWM_Spotter 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated above, almost no of these articles have more than a line of text within them, but Keep Abdul Waheed and Tayib Rauf since they have more text.--Otsego 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedents of terrorist events. Even those who are mistakenly accused for the September 11 have their own articles. It is likely that charges will follow in one way or another, so there is room for a lot of organic growth as well. - Mailer Diablo 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment precedent would suggest deletion, as previous articles on suspects (subsequently shown to be innocent) were filled with what proved to be unfounded gossip and harmful material because some wikipedia editors think that "a newspaper said that a neighbour thought that the suspect did X" is a reliable source. Regards, MartinRe 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the nom says, they are notable. They need expansion, not deletion. --Elliskev 20:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SV and Viriditas. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Viriditas. --Bletch 00:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep terror suspects are notable even if they end up proven innocent -- as opposed to just not guilty. (see Richard Jewell, e.g.) Carlossuarez46 06:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wiki not a news agency, if all are convicted then it's worth one page at most, not one page for each. Cf with Big Brother Series 7: all members, past and present are on the main story page. Escaper7 09:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because major anti-terrorism arrests followed by major regime changes in UK airports by a named group of individuals is most definitely not analagous to to some folks on Big Brother. (<humour>Unless Nikki goes out of control, I suppose<nothumour>). Budgiekiller 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- this is a page containing little information. a page on the event would be more useful and appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.124.83 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 16 August 2006
• Keep. Meets WP:V and WP:BIO. Surely these articles will be expanded and improved as events continue to unfold. --Satori Son 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. There is no reason to create stubs for everyone arrested as long as they haven't even been charged. There names are listed in the main article, which is more than sufficient - and in many countries it would be a violation of privacy laws to publicly name people before they have sentenced, let alone not even been accused (i.e. charged) for anything. What if it turns out that all or most of them are totally innocent? Would anyone of you who say "Keep" like to have your own name forever linked with a false arrest on one of the most read websites in the world? As many people always think that a mere arrest means that a person must have done something, this could very effectively ruin the rest of your life. So, as a compromise, let's keep the names in the main article but delete the stubs. The fact that Slimvirgin has managed to put together a tabloid type gossip article more suited for The Sun about one of the arrested persons is no reason to keep it. Thomas Blomberg 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Thomas Blomberg. I think it is premature to have articles on all these men which have not even been formally charged and tried. I think that it suffices to have their names listed in the main article. Nrets 14:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Thomas Blomberg --Oblivious 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per SlimVirgin - Aleichem 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - as per Slimvirgin. Bunts 00:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Thomas Blomberg. Crumbsucker 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all and Improve because nature of unfolding event means more is likely to be added. In six months or a year, if still stubs consider merge/redirect. Rich Farmbrough 11:05 18 August 2006 (GMT).
• Delete per Thomas Blomberg. What we have been told by authorities is that this group planned a terrorist plot. Where is the evidence of this plot beyond the statements of law enforcement that the plot has been foiled? Perhaps when there is evidence presented in a court of law these people might merit inclusion in a single entry. Marklemagne 02:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thomas Blomberg and Ming the Merciless. Webmink 05:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep all. These are people in the news for being acused of a major crime. If all or any are not charged then consider deleting them. In the mean time they need improving. Billlion 09:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In the light of recent false arrests, police apologies, and the media circus, the entries should be deleted. If convicted, then Stet Pimdip 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and above. This is Wikipedia, not Wikinews. This is not supposed to be a news database. These suspects are not encyclopedically notable enough for their own articles at this time. There's no need for in-depth profiles on them. If some of them prove to be key terrorists, then maybe for those people. Bwithh 02:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, arrests made[1]. Maybe re-list those who are turned loose. But I have a funky feeling those are going to be furiously argued to be kept because obviously they prove the evil scheming police keep arresting the wrong people :-) Weregerbil 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all These names are widely discussed on the web, and should be discussed here. Hopefully the article will grow to include significant information.--Robcotton 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Slim Virgin and MailerDiablo. The names are widely discussed by the media and on the web. RFerreira 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, if no more info will be availble ina month period, merge them all to a single list abakharev 03:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep All of these eventually can/will be filled out with more information, and at the least are fine as valid stubs. Deleting them all now just means more work later, and they serve no harm and a good baseline purpose now as stubs. rootology (T) 03:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all the only claim to notability is being arrested/charged, which is not sufficent for individual articles, even if more "padding" is added to lengthen them. They may become notable in the future, but wikiepedia is not a crystal ball, neither is it a news outlet. Also, as is common in breaking news stories, newpapers report comments by relatively unreliable people ("A neighbour/friend/eyewitness") which are often sensationalist, and later retracted/overridden. Wikipedia should not be in the business of repeating gossip immediately without allowing a reasonable time to elasp and check whether it was unfounded or not. As an encyclopedia, we should act like one with calm, measured, and unhurried actions, and not act like a tabloid newspaper trying to get the "scoop". In short, by failing notability, WP:NOT, and having WP:BLP concerns are all be grounds for deletion based on policy. Regards, MartinRe 12:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all On BBC Radio 4's World Tonight news programme yesterday evening (21 Aug 2006), a criminal lawyer expressed concerns that media coverage and speculation would make it difficult for the suspects to have a fair trial. If you think the suspects may be guilty, you'll agree that a fair trial is essential for them to be convicted and sentenced; if you think they may be innocent, you'll also agree a fair trial is essential so they can be released. Strongly disagree with expanding the pages now: whether they are innocent or guilty, second-hand speculation based on flimsy media reports ("neighbours said he looked a bit shifty") doesn't help the suspects or the aim of justice. At the moment, the pages are too minimal to be of any use... and anyone who wants the suspects' names can get them elsewhere. It would be more appropriate to list them if they are actually convicted. Marcusswann 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, morons!: It is very important to keep record of the acts of this fascism and manipulation of the public mind towards the real 1984. Would you keep the records of the Jews murdered by Goebbels around? I think so. The tired argument that this is not encyclopedic relies on the empty argument that this space we are working in is anything like the ridiculous hardbound volumes of drool hoisted upon us in our youths by "experts" who "knew" more than we, as a collective consciousness, did. Holon67 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replied to Irishpunktom on his talk page.
• Note to closing admin Should all these AfD'd pages be deleted, you may want to delete Mehran Hussain also. Or if that seems out of process, give me a holler and I'll ((db-author)) it. Weregerbil 15:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete all per Thomas Blomberg. These articles are nothing but clutter right now. Let them be created in the future as events warrant. —Michael Hays 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, mention in main article is ample at this stage. Mrsteviec
• Redirect all to 2006 transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot. As of now, it's the event that is newsworthy, not the actors. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all per trialsanderrors -Todd 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.