Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Abdul Kahar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was speedy redirected to 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid. Mailer Diablo 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammed Abdul Kahar

Maybe vanity, but mostly a news event; would be better on WikiNews. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep 50 Google news results, and this happened a day ago apparently. Let's see how time treats this story rather than deleting a workable stub... if this become uneditted and forgotten in a few months, consider a redirect to an appropriate article. --W.marsh 01:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless properly sourced and proven notability. As of now, no sourcing whatsoever. Crum375 01:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepTranswiki to wikinews - well I inserted one reference myself so at least it has one source. Crum375 02:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I accept that this is more a new article that encyclopedic, at this point anyway. Crum375 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per W.marsh, developing story. --JJay 01:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I added the 'current' template. Who would think that the article was vanity?. As for sources, the papers hit the streets a few hours from now, so sit tight. --die Baumfabrik 03:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or Delete Too early to say, so transwiki to Wikinews or delete. If he turns out to be a major figure in the public eye, recreate the article. I mean, I doubt the "Toronto 17" who were arrested hours after the two guys in London will be getting their own individual articles (and they shouldn't based on what we know about them so far, and assuming they're guilty) - heck, they still havent even been mentioned on the wikipedia Main Page headlines yet (which they should be). How does the arrest of two minor terror suspects make them more significant than those caught in the arrest of 17 minor terror suspects? (I'm using minor in comparison to major terrorist figures obviously, not the seriousness of their suspected plans). (btw, How on earth is this a "maybe vanity" article?) Bwithh 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiNews. Current events don't warrant article creations; not a crystal ball as to the relevancy they will end up having. Teke 06:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. This is a notable story right now in the UK and this person is one of the two key persons in that story. MLA 08:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the moment, but this is basically a Wikinews entry not a Wikipedia article. - Motor (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Abdul Kahar controversy or whatever & rewrite accordingly. Can't see a reason for article about a man who definitely fails 100 years test. MaxSem 09:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiNews. Too many "according to"'s and "allegedly" and general speculation to be an encyclopedia article yet. Once it settles it may be worth an article, but it is too soon to tell, and as the Jean Charles de Menezes situation showed, the references such articles depend on can change rapidly - compare the initial wikinews article to the now verified situation. Regards, MartinRe 10:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per MartinRe --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, would be much better in WikiNews; unwarranted article creation. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, has potentially very significant implications about the controversial "shoot to kill" policy. Absolutely do not delete. ("Vanity"?!?) PizzaMargherita 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment what implication? the police reportedly abandoned the "aim for the head" policy here due to the de Menezes scandal, and aimed for the upper body instead. I find the way the article puts the shooting allegation above everything else a little strange and POV incidentally. Bwithh 16:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • This is news to me, could you please point me to a reliable source reporting that the Met have officially abandoned shoot to kill? You may want to add it to the de Menezes article. I'm very interested. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 16:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Anyway, to answer your question. De Menezes, bad intelligence. Alpizar, no intelligence. Kahar, potentially very significant implications. PizzaMargherita 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • According to this Independent article, the headshot/lethal force policy is only for suspected suicide bombers. Otherwise its a shot to a torso http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article624165.ece Bwithh 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
          • ...thus confirming that shoot to kill has never been abandoned, especially not because of the de Menezes incident. Not surprised to be honest. The reason to keep STK is clearly political, the day STK goes, Ian Blair goes. Anyway, point taken about Kahar arguably not falling in the category for which STK is applicable, though I'd disagree. Let's see what happens. PizzaMargherita 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikinews, its not an article but a news report. --Terence Ong 16:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep or combine, we need to wait and see how the events pan out. There is some info at Forest Gate and it could be combined with that or added to an overall article about the events of 2nd june. The events need an article of their own surely, 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid as an article name anyone? talk • contribs) 18:24, 4 June 2006
    • Comment Every news event doesn't need an article of its own on wikipedia. That's what wikinews is for. Wikipedia can have "many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news" (from WP:NOT) but is this event historically significant? Remember, "Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." (also from WP:NOT. Regards, MartinRe 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment ok, well can we get a consensus on combining with forest gate or moving to an article about all the events? i don't think at the moment it warrants its own article. We could place it all on forest gate and see if it evolves into something significant. I feel this is important enough to warrant some entries on the forest gate page at least Pluke 18:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is likely to be almost as significant as the Jean Charles de Menezes case--duncan 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    • When he is, he'll put him in. Until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Deal? Delete -- GWO
      • I think he's already reached the Notability guideline: 'Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events'--duncan 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ñ

Comments moved from top of article as otherwise it messes up display on main afd pages. MartinRe 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

the page: 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid has been set up to bring all the info together, please help work on this page and we can then redirect Mohammed Abdul Kahar to the new page. This gives us the chance to move him back here if his details become any more significant. The new page needs a lot of work so please help.Pluke 10:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone can give me a good reason to keep this article as it is, I will redirect to 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid tomorrow. The linked article already contains a section dedication to Mohammed Abdul Kahar which was copied and expanded from here. If Mohammed Abdul Kahar becomes a more significant figure in the near future we can always move that information back to his own page, but at the moment i think this is the best solution. Comments?Pluke 21:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that would not solve the concerns I (and I believe others) had, in that this is too fluid with sources that are too liable to change, hence the transwiki to news. Simply moving the same information into a separate article doesn't address that in my view, as it's the fluid information than needs transikifiying, not the article title. Regards, MartinRe 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Pluke, by all means go for it. I was convinced that was already done. Info duplication is bad as it induces forking. PizzaMargherita 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, pending further information on the case. Personally, I don't think this affects the Met's shoot-to-kill policy at all, as Kahar was shot during a police raid. He also was shot in the shoulder, not in the head; he is a terror suspect, not, like De Menzies, a victim of circumstances (and, of course, of the Met's decision to implement Kratos).
Pending further results, I'd opt to keep the article (albeit with improved sourcing of information given in the article). If this case does not develop in a way worthy of encyclopedic mentioning, merge with 2 June 2006 London Terror Raid (or simply redirect, as the text has already been incorporated). Cheers, Something Wicked 21:43, 5 June 2006 (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.