Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amjad Mohammed Khan

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. discuss a redirect in talk Secret ^account 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Khan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He was was sought for questioning. He was found and removed from the list. Fails WP:BIO IQinn (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he was on the FBI Seeking Information - War on Terrorism list; whether he was wrongly accused or not has little bearing on his notability, international manhunts were carried out to find him...and it was determined he was innocent. BLP concerns mean that we shouldn't print his home address or anything, but to relate his story is certainly allowable. Bad articles need to be fixed, not deleted. Bringing out the full details of how he came to be assumed to be a terrorist himself, over a period of several years it seems, before being cleared, is an easily surmounted task. Tagged for rescue.Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being placed on that list does not grant notability. Did you find more information or sources? I could not. This is a BLP with zero information about the subject. IQinn (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google Books or Google News, they both return the subject in question. Where did you try searching? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. Fails WP:BIO No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources as well as one event. IQinn (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nominator... Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's what "as nom" means. IQinn (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as I'm sure the closer will not see your aggreeing with your own nomination as a second !vote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP problems and there is no solid information which establishes his notability. Borock (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FBI Seeking Information - War on Terrorism list Delete as WP:BLP1E and per WP:NOTNEWS. At the time of my writing this, the article does not say he was found innocent... all it currently says is that he was removed from the FBI's list before 2006. The article is unbalanced. Unless the article is improved to create proper balance, it does more harm to the (innocent) individual than good.... and THAT violates WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing my redirect opinion. DGG's points are compelling. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being on the initial list is sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? IQinn (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, DGG, why? How many were on that list? And might you agree that without balanced coverage of his innocence and being taken off the list, the article is slightly imbalanced? If it were to be fixed to add balance, I would reverse my opinion... as currently I now think a redirect would do better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were only eight people on the list at the time. [1] -- our article on the list is clear how extremely selective it was. It was probably their assumption initially that he was involved also--but to be on that list and so innocuous that they did not proceed further after they found him is a really special distinction, if you look at the other people on it. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- No doubt this nomination sprung from good-faith motives, but it gives the unfortunate appearance of an attempt to obfuscate the historical record. As DGG says he was on the most-wanted list for a significant amount of time. His subsequent clearance is no more relevant than the subsequent clearance of Richard Jewell. Prior to their separation, when they were college students, in the USA, Khan and his wife founded a muslim charity. Just last week Khan has been quoted offering an alternate account of how his wife spent the five years since she disappeared from site in March 2003. Geo Swan (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has been quoted last week. Sounds interesting could you provide me with the link to that? As you mention his wife i get more and more the feeling that this here is a Wikipedia:Coatrack article of Aafia Siddiqui. She is very notable her ex-husband not, only because he was searched by US authority to ask him about his ex-wife Aafia Siddiqui. IQinn (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to today's Guardian: Khan's version of events has enraged his ex-wife's family. Fowzia has launched a 500m rupees (£360,000) defamation law suit, while regularly attacking him in the press as a wifebeater set on "destroying" her family. "Marrying him was Aafia's biggest mistake," she told me. Khan says it is a ploy to silence him in the media and take away his children. Geo Swan (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's for the link. An article not about him. It is an article about his wife Aafia Siddiqui what just further strengthen the argument that we here deal with an Wikipedia:Coatrack article. IQinn (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WRT to your assertion that the article was "about Aafia", I think you overlooked the eight paragraphs, over 500 words, that were devoted to covering Declan Walsh's interview with Amjad.

WRT to the "coatrack" concern you raise. Could you please call on the arguments in this essay in a more specific way? I have seen many people call upon the coatrack essay as if it were an official wikipedia policy. While I acknowledge that the essay raises some interesting points, I have found that many of those who call upon the authority of coatrack do so in a way that overlooks the actual advice in the essay. For instance, the essay does not recommend deletion as the first response to a coatrack concern. It reserves suggesting deletion for when good faith attempts to address the coatrack concern have failed. Further, the essay has half a dozen sections describing specific named subclasses of coatrack -- my favorite name is "wongo juice". It has always seemed to me that anyone who asserts their concern is described in the coatrack essay, but then can't or won't be specific about which named class they think describes their concern -- they aren't really calling on coatrack after all. So, would you please try to be more specific about which arguments in this essay you think apply here? Care to explain why you are ignoring the advice of that essay that the first approach to your concern should not be a nomination for deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not paraphrase and do not put things out of context. I have nominated the article because it fails WP:BIO. Go up and read. At that time the article said nothing more than he was searched for, to question him about his ex-wife. Does this makes him notable. I think no.

After nomination people have added information to the article like his Occupation, where he studied and that his father had a company and the he was married to Aafia Siddiqui. Specially one editor mention the guardian.co.uk article aboutAafia Siddiqui where he was questioned about her. The subject of this article is Aafia Siddiqui not her husband.

So he was searched for. He was found. He was questioned and interviewed about his wife. That's not enough to gain him notability. Some people here have argued he gains notability because he was on a search list. Do we automatically grand notability to each and everybody who have been on a search list? IQinn (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody on an FBI Most Wanted List totaling 8 people suspected of involvement of terrorism in the United States, I believe we do. At least, all eight of them seem to have wiki articles - unless you were planning to nominate the others for deletion as well. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is changing over the years right? So the number would be much greater. Sure a lot of them have articles because there are notable for many reasons not only because they are on the list. You have not present a rational argument why "all" on the list automatically gain notability. IQinn (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, it appears there have been a total of 31 people on that list since its inception in 2002, 7 years, 31 people, that's about 4 people per year. And yes, every single one of them appears to have a Wikipedia article about why the FBI warned they were a potential terrorist threat who must be found.Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the information but i still do not understand why we automatically grant notability without looking at the real cause. The FBI explicitly stated that they do not suspect him of any wrongdoing and just search him to ask him questions. Most likely about his wife. So why do you think that we should automatically grant notability? If there are cases where there are just searched for as witness. IQinn (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I can help you with your lack of understanding. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lack of understanding on my side. How about you take my points answers my questions and engages in a civil discussion? Cheers IQinn (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Geo. Notable enough already. (and of course I want to have the start of an article to look at the next time his name pops up).--Epeefleche (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. May i ask you for what he is notable? IQinn (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I was unclear. When I wrote "per Geo", I meant "pursuant to the rationale set forth by Geo, specifically his comment that ...he was on the most-wanted list for a significant amount of time. His subsequent clearance is no more relevant than the subsequent clearance of Richard Jewell. Prior to their separation, when they were college students, in the USA, Khan and his wife founded a muslim charity. Just last week Khan has been quoted offering an alternate account of how his wife spent the five years since she disappeared from site in March 2003'".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the original nominator for deletion has now said on the article's talk page that "it was clear to me that my version would not {be deleted on} AfD. :) (it was to good) And it did not matter to me. I have just tried to make it a good structured fully verified article. I did not write it to make it bad looking for the AfD. following a dispute over "his version" or "not his version" being the version to appear - apparently suggesting that he doesn't believe the article should be deleted if his version is the one used, only if it's not his version that's used. Since the basis of the deletion request is on the question of the subject's notability - which is obviously not dependent on the article's quality/version - I have suggested to him that he withdraw the nomination for deletion. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strike this comment because it is paraphrasing and out of context and an dispute that has spread over from the articles talk page. IQinn (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the strikethrough of User:Sherurcij's comment because it was done by User:Iqinn, and it appeared to me that it might give the impression that User:Sherurcij had withdrawn his remarks. See the diff here. I left the strikethrough User:Iqinn's remarks in place, because the user is free to withdrawn his or her own remarks. However, as it appears that it may have been done in error, I will leave a summary of my actions on each user's talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The strikethrough was no error as i have clearly given my reasons for that above "I strike this comment because it is paraphrasing and out of context and an dispute that has spread over from the articles talk page." Sherurcij knows and did not remove the tags himself and a dispute had been put to rest. I suggest you strike it again as i otherwise would be forced to long replies to defend myself and set things straight and the conflict would never stop. IQinn (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He received international media coverage for his accusation, fugitive status, and clearing of charges against him. Dream Focus 09:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a suspect no longer on the wanted list -> non-notable. Purely WP:RECENTISM. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a man known for one event - being wanted by the FBI - and through his wife, Aafia Siddiqui. Surely WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED apply? We're basically invading his privacy by repeating old 'War Against Terror' charges against him while he gets on with his life. Not everyone the FBI once wanted to speak to is notable. Fences&Windows 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, article has been entirely rewritten, more than a dozen footnotes and sources about Khan added, and doubled in size since the original nomination. This doesn't necessarily predicate a Keep, but keep in mind that many of the delete votes were based on a "crappier" version of the article that did have WP:Coatrack issues; but that again, issues mean an article needs to be improved, not deleted. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the last edit of the article was on "28 November 2009". So that at least the last two delete from "29 November 2009" and "1 December 2009" were based on the improved version. IQinn (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are arguments for both sides but as far as I can see the FBI wanted to speak to him (but didn't officially suspect him of anything criminal), they did speak to him and then no further action was taken. I do not think that this is enough for notability. Whether other people on the FBI list have their own pages seems irrelevant, notability should be decided on a case by case basis.Mah favourite (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, one of my concerns is that the role her first husband played in her arrest, and what sort of person he was, is definitely relevant. But if we merge this article into Aafia Siddiqui, its caretakers will almost certainly request a WP:FORK that we start a new article about Khan himself. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would say that anything about him that is relevant to Aafia Siddiqui's article should be covered there. I am not sure what you mean by WP:FORK as that page just seems to talk about the unreliability of external mirrors and forks of wikipedia (unless I have missed something, I haven't encountered it before as I am quite new to wikipedia). Being quite new to wikipedia I am only basing my argument on the policies (or guidlines) that I have read as they have been introduced into discussions by other editors, there may be other policies that I have not yet seen that contradict me. Mah favourite (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afia_Siddiqui or FBI Seeking Information - War on Terrorism list per WP:ONEVENT. "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate".Click23 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see what's notable about this. NBeale (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ex-wife's article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's non notable, or at least merge to ex-wife's article. --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 21:06, 3 December 2009 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.