Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Siddique

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. Consensus that there are sufficient sources to show notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Siddique[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Being on the list is not enough for notability. Störm (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I lean towards keep due to [1] which constitutes in-depth coverage by a reliable sources. While articles like [2] and [3] don’t go into depth they strongly suggest notability. Agreed that inclusion on a list is not grounds for notability, but they seem to meet much of the criteria after a quick google (cant believe how many people are named Amir Siddique...) which suggests that an exhaustive search would find more than enough for inclusion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered for his activities at Lal Masjid beyond just the UK designation. e.g. - is in depth. Other coverage: [4][5][6][7]Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep above comments prove that it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Masum Reza^📞 18:56, 24 July 2019 (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.