Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roshonara Choudhry

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (message) 11:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roshonara Choudhry

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

Despite the press coverage because the target was an MP, Choudry is known only for this single attack, making this a case of WP:BLP1E. in addition, this type of incident would generally be titled "Attack on Stephen Timms" rather than using the prepetrator's name, but I think that title shows up how unimportant this is outside of a few lines in Timms' entry (where it is already covered in its own section). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate q been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per BLP1E, "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented." In fact, that clause is illustrated by reference to another failed assassin (albeit of a President). Not to get all waxy, but by way of further illustration, Jared Lee Loughner, is quite comparable to the article being discussed here. TJRC (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is obvious. No Islamist in the UK has attacked anyone of such a high profile as far as I'm aware, it's the first attempt by al-Qaeda or one of its sympathisers at a political assignation in Britain.[1]. She's the most notable female Islamist attacker there has been in the UK and the life sentence may suggest notability. The victim was not just a politician from any party, but Labour were actually governing at the time. No mitigating factors such a mental illness, lack of education/intelligence or lack of pre-meditation. Case has wider repercussions such as raising awareness of the impact of radical Islamist websites and videos and led to calls for the US to take down such material.[2] She still gets mentioned in the news, for example a quick search of Google news shows 14 mentions in the last five days alone. The article needs expansion, not deletion and I also note that the editor who created the bulk of the article has not been notified of this AFD.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While the assailant has stated that they were influenced by the sermons of Anwar al-Awlaki, I'm not aware that she claimed to be acting as a member of al-Qaeda. Do you have any basis for your claim that this was "the first attempt by al-Qaeda at a political assasignation in Britain". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well maybe the source I provided immediately after the sentence in question could be worth a look? Can I ask what you edit summary "Careful with That Axe, Eugene" means please? My name isn't Eugene and some of your other summaries aimed at me haven't been appreciated either (for example I'm not a "lady").--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source calls Choudry an "al-Qaeda fanatic" but makes no claim that she was a member of al-Qaeda. In fact, it suggests the opposite, stating she had "no direct contact or other encouragement from extremists". This may be helpful (although the "axe" in this case is the political/ideological axe that you seem to be grinding here). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not grinding any axe whatsoever thank you very much and I suggest you strike that comment immediately. I haven't really read up extensively on her exact affiliations and perhaps she only is an al-Qaeda sympathiser rather than a confirmed member (I'll tweak the comment above to reflect that), but it's abundantly clear that she' notable enough for an article regardless of her precise allegiances. As with others I find it very bizarre that anyone would even attempt to delete this article. This year you have submitted three articles for deletion which were either created by me and or where I'm the second most prolific contributor. All 3 concern female criminals of Indian or Bangladeshi heritage or their crimes and you're still yet to gain a single comment agreeing with your stance in any one of the AFDs. [3][4] In one of them you personally attacked me and refused to remove the attack after begin asked to do so by an admin and you still haven't apologised for doing so [5] Also, care to explain you latest edit summary? Thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking at the sources, the subject appears to be noted in more detail than the 1 event is. Like TJRC I searched our articles of other failed assassins such as John Hinckley, Jr. and this doesn't appear inconsistent with them. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hugely notable. I cannot imagine why this has been nominated, since BLP1E is clear that it does not apply where "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented". An assassination attempt on an MP is not only significant, it's virtually unheard-of, and the individual was the actual would-be assassin - a substantial and well-documented role by any description. I should also mention WP:CRIME, which lists two conditions, both of which are satisfied here (only one needs to be met for the article to meet the requirements of WP:CRIME): 1) the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; and 2) the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Prioryman (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently unusual person and event, received extended coverage. Passes notability requirements as mentioned by previous commenters. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Allow me to quote from WP:CRIME:
A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.
Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.
As stated in the nomination, the incident is already covered in a separate section of Timms' article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet material such as Choudhry's background and how she acted in court would be undue not to mention irrelevant to the biography of Timm's yet help to give a better understanding of both Choudhry and the event which is why it should be in a separate article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRIME is a useful guideline, but WP:BLP1E is policy. "[I]f a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence." WP:POLCON. At best, you make an argument that WP:CRIME should be updated to resolve any apparent conflict with WP:BLP1E; not that the guideline should be followed instead of the policy. TJRC (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified the creator of the article of this AfD. The nom's good-faith notification actually went to the editor who created an initial redirect to the Stephen Timms article, rather than to the editor who actually created the article qua article. I presume this was a consequence of Twinkle automation or the like. I consider this notification consistent with WP:AFDHOW ("Notifying substantial contributors to the article"). TJRC (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I was quoting WP:CRIME to offset the patently misleading earlier reference to it made by another editor. I agree that policy should not be superseded by guidelines, but I think you and I interpret BLP1E differently with regard to how important is in a historical context. Thank you for notifying the article creator. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This would be like saying that Sirhan Sirhan or John Wilkes Booth are not notable by themselves, although we are supposed to assume the nomination was made with the best of intentions. I agree with this: Notability is obvious. No Islamist in the UK has attacked anyone of such a high profile as far as I'm aware, it's the first attempt by al-Qaeda or one of its sympathisers at a political assignation in Britain. Redhanker (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (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.