Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Ahmed Dockrat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 both W.marsh 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Farhad Ahmed Dockrat
- Farhad Ahmed Dockrat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)
- Junaid Ismail Dockrat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)
This is newsworthy, not encyclopedia-worthy. These two individuals are not notable in and of themselves, their claim to notability rests on their being named as potential terrorist suspects by the US. Not enough for their own articles, and quite possibly not even enough to be mentioned on a list if there was one. Zunaid©® 13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2007 (UTC)
- Keep I created this article because these two individuals not only represent person who are currently making headlines within south africa but represent a very interesting about South Africa's presidence at the UN Security Council as well as both South African and US relations as well as the USA's activities at the UN. Finally it is another point on the perpetual debate of what is a terrorist. A google search for "junaid dockrat" returns 380 returns. The article is not there because they are declared potential terrorist subjects but the issues that that declarations have created. If the exact same issue was happening, except the accused was residing within America i'm sure a much more extensive article would have been created about them. —The preceding ry of the event is of drastic importance, had these two been citizens of Germany we would not be having this discussion. Secondly, the two individuals have not been arrested, please research the incident properly before requesting a deletion. Even if they had been that is not the issue, the issue is the international media attention surrounding the incident. Thunsigned comment was added by Aliwalla (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 January 2007 UTC.
- Their country of origin (which happens to be mine too) isn't the question here. The crux of the issue comes down to whether persons or entities mentioned in the news qualify to be encyclopedia-worthy. I have doubts they would pass the 10-year test, much less a 1-year test. While the incident may throw up interesting debate (and may WELL be deserving of an article, especially if it results in an extradition order and/or international court case), the two people are not in and of themselves notable and don't automatically gain notability just by being arrested, no matter how unusual or rare the charge is. The distinction is important. There is a difference between the notability of an event and the notability of the people involved in the event. (This is similar to those murdered cops we had on AfD a few weeks ago. The murders may well have been unusual and article-worthy, but the cops themselves didn't gain sufficient notability just by being killed in the line of duty.) Zunaid©® 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fistly, when it comes to notability the countirdly, cops are murdered on a daily basis, the questioning of the declaration of persons as terror suspects by the UN security council and the subsequent issues over what this means for South Africa's position on the UN Security Council and it's soverignty is important. If you would think it would be best to combine the two articles into an incident article then do so. The point of the articles is to convey, to the reader, the relevant information pertaining to a current event in South Africa that involves the UN, Al-Qaeda, the South African Government and its foreign policy and the American governmnet and its foreign policy. I fail to see why you feel something that has been frontpage news in South Africa - and has appeared in the international press - in the past couple of days will be forgotten in ten years. --Aliwalla 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again this case makes the South African news: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20070130004541774C584944.
- Fistly, when it comes to notability the countirdly, cops are murdered on a daily basis, the questioning of the declaration of persons as terror suspects by the UN security council and the subsequent issues over what this means for South Africa's position on the UN Security Council and it's soverignty is important. If you would think it would be best to combine the two articles into an incident article then do so. The point of the articles is to convey, to the reader, the relevant information pertaining to a current event in South Africa that involves the UN, Al-Qaeda, the South African Government and its foreign policy and the American governmnet and its foreign policy. I fail to see why you feel something that has been frontpage news in South Africa - and has appeared in the international press - in the past couple of days will be forgotten in ten years. --Aliwalla 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Their country of origin (which happens to be mine too) isn't the question here. The crux of the issue comes down to whether persons or entities mentioned in the news qualify to be encyclopedia-worthy. I have doubts they would pass the 10-year test, much less a 1-year test. While the incident may throw up interesting debate (and may WELL be deserving of an article, especially if it results in an extradition order and/or international court case), the two people are not in and of themselves notable and don't automatically gain notability just by being arrested, no matter how unusual or rare the charge is. The distinction is important. There is a difference between the notability of an event and the notability of the people involved in the event. (This is similar to those murdered cops we had on AfD a few weeks ago. The murders may well have been unusual and article-worthy, but the cops themselves didn't gain sufficient notability just by being killed in the line of duty.) Zunaid©® 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete To be one of the great number of people that the us suspects of terroism is , unfortunately, not notable. And there isnt really any more to the article than that. DGG 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)--Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per requester and DGG Netuser500 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps a userfy would be a good option to allow the article to be rewritten in terms of the incident rather than the people involved. Zunaid©® 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed: Perhaps "2007 South African Terror Listings" ? I'll try to put something together soon --Aliwalla 09:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for now appears to pass WP:BIO. A merger in the future could be wise. Addhoc 13:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as Adhoc notes, Farhad Ahmed Dockrat does seem to pass WP:BIO; as for his brother Junayd, I'd merge his article in that of Farhad, as he is clearly the less relevant of the two.--Aldux 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~ A Train take the 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep both, being listed by the UN Security Council as a suspect seems unusually notable by default. The news wires and Google show ample coverage of this case, so it is not just one of many terror suspects. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not inherently worthy of being chronicled. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of items. Unlike someone like, say, Jose Padilla who has actually made changes and such, merely being listed as a terrorist suspect isn't very notable. I'm sure the US has hundreds of such lists and merely being on a list does not entitle you to an article. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and repeat, shall I head down to the police station and see who all has a warrant out today? WP:NOT paper, perhaps, but this is the wrong URL. The correct one for news articles is here. Seraphimblade 11:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- Zunaid©® 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as more suited to Wikinews than wikipdeia. Edison 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notable. Everyking 06:55, 7 February 2007 (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.
