Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kérim Chatty

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. Davewild 19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kérim Chatty

Kérim Chatty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is about a guy who was accused of planning to hijack a plane. The investigation was dropped, he was cleared of all terrorism-related charges and only convicted for carrying an illegal handgun. He is not notable and the article reeks of speculation and false accusations. Unithow (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - this incident received huge attention in international media[1][2][3][4][5], definitely one of the most notable terrorism-related incidents in Sweden in later years. That the investigation was dropped does not affect its notability. The article is also properly sourced so you need to specifiy what you mean by "false accusations". /Slarre (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The incident recieved attention based only on the interpretation of it as a botched terrorist attack, for which there was no evidence whatsoever. There was only speculation about uncompleted flight training he underwent years before converting to Islam, and speculation about his beliefs and connections to militant islamists, which is reproduced in the article. The unidentified US "military intelligence source" claiming to know that his intentions were to crash the plane into an embassy was denied by Swedish security police and the claim was withdrawn by the CIA. The fact is he was cleared of the charges and for all we know he is just a small-time criminal, i.e. clearly not notable. Unithow (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"There was only speculation about uncompleted flight training he underwent years before converting to Islam, and speculation about his beliefs and connections to militant islamists" - These aren't only speculations as the information is based on the cited reliable sources present in the article. If you disagree then you need to show that with reliable sources.

"The unidentified US "military intelligence source" claiming to know that his intentions were to crash the plane into an embassy was denied by Swedish security police and the claim was withdrawn by the CIA." - Please provide at least one reliable source for this as well. /Slarre (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You have provided the sources yourself, [6] [7] [8] when you created the article. Unithow (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Only the second source mentions anything about this claim - it would be good with several reliable, independent sources to verify. The article also says that Reuters has stood by its report and not withdrawn anything from it. However, discussion about the factual accuracy or potential bias of the article doesn't really belong to this discussion but should be brought up on the discussion page instead. /Slarre (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom & WP:NOT#NEWS. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It seems this man obtained notability/notoriety through being a suspected hijacker, he was never charged for this offence. He has done nothing else to warrant an article, I would say it's time to let him slip back into obscurity. RMHED (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple reliable sourcing is what proves notability at WP, and that is certainly rpesent. DGG (talk) 08:23, 25 November 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.