Talk:Abdul Waheed (suspected aircraft bomb plotter)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on August14, 2006. The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Sources

To be honest, I think this article is a disgrace. None of you people even know who this person is. He went to my school (which wasn't even the one that has been documented in this article). It's hardly a fair representation of him and has just been thrown up here without any real thought. If you want to be a newscaster, try joining a media outlet. Wikipedia is really not the place to try breaking news with, particularly attempting to create biographies of people who have within days only just entered the public domain.

All we do is report what other reliable publications have reported. If you know of any other published material that should be added, go ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

These "reliable" publications aren't reliable at all. You should know better. They can't spell and they don't have a clue about Buckinghamshire!

Nevertheless, we only report what mainstream sources report. That's our policy. See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also see WP:BLP where high-quality sources are required for potentially negitive information about living people. "According to paper X, an unnamed person said" is very far from a high quality source, so fails WP:RS as well as WP:BLP. In the immediate aftermath of any major news story, papers print a lot of padding to try and get the "scoop", and sell papers, so assessing the reliablity of a source should also take into account the haste in which it was written. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so have no need to aim for a "scoop", and reprinting mewspaper speculation based on random people might have a "source", but is far from reliable enough. Hence, as per WP:RS, and more importantly WP:BLP I have removed all weakly-sourced information based on "paper said that unnamed person said that subject did". Regards, MartinRe 10:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)