This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created at a time when his name was being associated with the London tube bombings; there seems to be no evidence for this, and another person has been named as the bomber he was suspected of being. As far as I can tell, he is no longer a suspect, and the article should be deleted as being based on erroneous speculation. Delete -- Karada 16:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After he has been left out from the investigation hypothesis, it's really unnecessary to keep this article. --Neigel von Teighen 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Zacarias Moussaoui didn't actually hijack any planes on 9/11, and Lotfi Raissi was found innocent on charges stemming from original theories he was involved in 9/11. Fiaz is a fairly major secondary player in an event of global proportions, I can't imagine not having an article about who he is. When the Kennedy files get released, would we delete Lee Harvey Oswald's article? I think not. Sherurcij 17:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Adding to Sherurci's reasoning, I'll toss in Richard Jewell, although Jewell did have greater notability owing to his actions at the time of the bombing, his libel lawsuits, and Janet Reno's public apology. Nonetheless, I think we've established an... acceptable, if not ideal... precedent of including articles for persons falsely accused of responsibility for major terrorist attacks. In the event we decide that Ejaz Fiaz is not notable enough a falsely accused person, then we just merge to 7 July 2005 London bombings. If it turns out he did have a role and isn't innocent at all, then I'd think there's no question that the article should be kept in that case. The Literate Engineer 20:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. His brother Naveed Fiaz will remain in custody through at least 23 July. There hasn't been a mention of Ejaz/Jacksy since 7/14 (via Google News), but he also hasn't, apparently, been found -- which may mean nothing. If the other Fiaz is released without charges, I'll have no objections. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not unthinkable someone will hit his name in future research on the event. I think keeping an article on falsely accused people (clearly labelled as such) should be kept. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree that being accused, then swiftly cleared, under intense media scrutiny in the aftermath of a major crime is independently notable, under the precedent of Richard Jewell. Xoloz 04:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notably involved (if accidentally) in a notable event. -Splash 18:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Splash. Edit article so it is clearer that he is not guilty if it is the case. --AI 00:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mgm|^(talk). Especially in the context of "intense media scrutiny". There is social justice in having innocence disseminated as heavily as guilt is (as per Richard Jewell's comment). While social justice is not necessarily the function of an encyclopedia, it does not detract from the fact that the dissemination of truths (facts) certainly is. L-Bit 07:03, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.