Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar haque

Add links
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 was redirect to 2018 London "army of children" plot. Redirect to article about the crime that should be created from scratch. I left the history under the redirect to save time but this shouldn't be a cut and past job./ Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umar haque

[edit]
Umar haque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure he is really all that notable, in essence he is known for the one thing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frc Rdl 12:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Frc Rdl 12:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frc Rdl 12:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every major UK newspaper and the BBC have covered him today! the Guardian gave a full page coverage. How much more notable do you need?CanterburyUK (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generally it needs to be for more then one incident (or in this case crime) WP:CRIME.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven Sure 'generally' that is true. But what about this specific case do you think is not noteworthy? It's not a run-of-the-mill crime. Its hard to believe that convictions for terrorism in the Old Bailey are so commonplace that they are now not notable? On top of that, does not his role in training jihadi children make his case very unique. If you can to so many similar cases on Wiki that 'yet one more' has no value - please feel free.
Anyway, as I already said: it seems clear that the view of all the main media in the UK is that this case is noteworthy.CanterburyUK (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. News. A new article with refs all relating to his terrorist crimes. Nothing enduring i can see. Szzuk (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See comment below. Szzuk (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Szzuk On that basis the Wiki article on Anders Behring Breivik would have been deleted -but that article in fact has evolved over time and is still being edited in the last month: and spun off other pages like Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik.
So it seems ill advised to delete a page so early - sure if in 6 months there is only tumble-weed here - then delete it. But until then, doesn't hurt Wiki to not come up empty if people reading about Haque want to look.CanterburyUK (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that can hurt--frequently initial coverage is wrong, incomplete, misguided. Correctness may not be your concern, but it is our concern. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should keep a draft of the article and return it to mainspace at a later time when the enduring nature of the subject has been proven. Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good option. See, what happens is someone writes something up too soon, and then they say "ah well it may become more widely covered and it would be a shame to delete it." It makes sense, of course, from their perspective. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is plenty of coverage but so far nothing to prove that NOTNEWS doesn't apply. That's the problem with people reading the newspaper and writing something up immediately. NOTNEWS should be an attitude shared by all writers. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies See as above -that logic would have applied, and been wrong, for Anders Behring Breivik.CanterburyUK (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And again you manage to totally miss the point. It is more important that we do things correctly than that we jump on every court case, every criminal, every event. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies Please don't personalise this. Reading 'Wikipedia:News coverage does not decrease notability' suggests that your black-white view of NOTNEWS is not the only view here?CanterburyUK (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what my view is. You may have missed the part where I didn't actually say "delete", for instance: you think this is all black and white? We can't think and discuss? I'm not talking about a "logic"--I'm talking about an attitude. And pardon me if I don't have all that much faith in your knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines, given your proclivity to basing content on primary sources and opinion pieces. So "don't personalise this"--I'm going by what I know of your edits. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition - it seems highly likely that there is more news if nothing else then about what happened in the schools and Mosque where he taught children. there are investigations by the Charity Commission and Ofsted in progress: so there will be more to add in coming weeks as those are made public. CanterburyUK (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect per E.M.Gregory's proposal below. WP:TOOSOON/BLP1E at best. Terrorist plots are a dime a dozen. This one was unique and sensational in that it targeted young children in a very direct way but I do not see it, based on current reporting, as 'one for the textbooks'. If there is reporting beyond the initial sensationalism or if later investigation shows it to be a new ISIS strategy, then it would merit an article. As it stands it is a horrific story but not of encyclopedic notability. Jbh Talk 19:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Delete as a BLP on this article's subject but support a redirect of the article to a stub about the event ie not focusing exclusively or primarily on the biography of a single person. Last edited: 23:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jbh 'Dime a dozen' you say? 'One unique thing' you say? Looking at List of people convicted under Terrorism Acts in the United Kingdom, suggests by it's shortness that dime a dozen is not accurate, wouldn't you say?CanterburyUK (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am just jaded. I have, literally, two books filled with people convicted and suspected of terrorism - and that just goes up to 2008. The revised version is five volumes. (See: Edward F. Mickolus, Susan L. Simmons: The Terrorist List [5 volumes] (Praeger Security International) Abc-clio, 2011, ISBN ISBN 978-0313374715)
As to 'one-unique thing' most of these self-radicalized plots follow a similar trajectory and from my reading this one was no different until you get to the kids. There was a long term attempt to spread the radicalization (and possibly the conspiracy) to young children. That has not, to my knowledge, been seen in the West. If the case is going to be studied for anything it will be that but until more information comes out we will not know. Maybe they will find ISIS documents suggesting this - like the call to use cars. Then again it might simply be a case of child abuse ie he had access to the kids and roped them into his perversion because he had access ie it was opportunistic rather than strategic. If it was strategic then the case will be covered beyond the 'Oh my God! The children!' burst of press coverage.
I can see how this could come to justify an article, more on the plot than the person, but the coverage is just not there right now. Jbh Talk 22:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE from May 2017 [1][2] - with extremely wide international coverage on trial proceedings and conviction in February-March 2018. WP:BLPCRIME not an issue as PERP was convicted. The crimes themselves are clearly notable per WP:NCRIME given the level of coverage. A rename is perhaps possible, though in this case the name of the perp is the most likely search term (unless this is a wider ring in the schools - in which case a case name would be more appropriate for the group).Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To satisfy notnews coverage needs to be ongoing, with crime that typically means coverage outside the usual reporting times of arrest and trial. Szzuk (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that many many crimes get coverage at trial time but few are notable. I've never looked closely at NCRIME so what criteria do you think applies? Szzuk (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DIVERSE & WP:INDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at NCRIME and it says we need a 'historic' crime with enduring coverage (notnews), so he fails NCRIME in my opinion. He could still be included according to GNG but the whole article is about his crime from what I can tell so there are no sources to support GNG. You've linked to wp:diverse and wp:indepth which are in the 'Notability Events' guidelines so i'm not sure how they are connected? Szzuk (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS is for really routine stuff (sports announcement and the weather) - not attempting to raise an army of children in London.WP:NCRIME actually does not state "historic" crime with enduring coverage - however WP:EVENTCRIT (which NCRIME is part of) - does. Per WP:RAPID - we are unable at this time to assess future coverage to assess historicity. We do however have wide, international, multi-lingual coverage of this crime - and no reason to assume such coverage will cease, therefore we should err on the side of retaining the article (on the assumption coverage will continue).Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NCRIME says and I quote 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. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. I think that is a definite fail there. I think you want to keep on the basis of WP:RAPID that more information may come to light. It isn't impossible there are more crimes from him to come that may tip this into 'Historic' event crime, but I'm doubtful. (I will update my usage of notnews). Szzuk (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Szzuk, with regard to Wikipedia:Notability (events), under which WP:NCRIME falls, it is routine to KEEP NOTABLE events quickly, sometimes even the day they occur. Editors routinely start articles on notable crimes soon after they happen, take a look at Category:2018 crimes by month. It is only necessary that the crime pass WP:GNG. Guidelines like WP:NCRIME are subsidiary to WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID.Meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as there nothing routine in that.--Shrike (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comment on content, and not users please.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing to expand article, as coverage continues and impact emerges.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first saw your changes this morning, particularly the Independent quote. I thought to myself 'OK, now I can change to Keep'. Then I read the articles and saw they were just one line mentions. What I, personally, would like to see to show this has 'continuing coverage' is at least one source from outside the 'flash converge' time that would be considered significant coverage per GNG ie several paragraphs addressing him and the plot and providing analysis and/or contextualization of the plot. That last part is, for me, very important. Above, I mentioned that the lasting impact of this plot will likely hinge on whether it was opportunistic or strategic. Expanding on that we might see lasting impact if it changes government policies towards Islamic schools beyond the immediate rhetorical cries for 'something to be done'. We could also see lasting impact if this is the genesis of similar attacks or for calls by AQ et.al. or ISIS et.al. to target children in a similar manner. Jbh Talk 14:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are outside of the time frame where RAPID would apply. RAPID envisions "…a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge"(emp mine) not weeks. It also applied to hasty nominations and is not an argument for keeping an article in and of itself. Even with the dozens of articles published we have, really, only a few bare facts about him and the crime. Once the Charity Commission's report comes out there likely be more information.
In any case, I could support an article/stub on the plot/crime itself, under NCRIME, easier than I could support an article on the individual, under CRIME. (The requirement for sustained coverage in CRIME is baked in but NCRIME allows for 'media frenzy' to confer notability on the event. This would also be a textbook case of NEVENT#3.4.) In the case of focusing on the event rather than the person there is not really any meat to the coverage and, in my opinion, it would be most appropriate for it to be a simple stub. Jbh Talk 20:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 20:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, I do that a lot, too. People make persuasive arguments. Or something happens to suddenly make a non-notable topic notable. Or someone figures out the right keywords, or the accurate name to search, or....E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Umar_haque&oldid=1069198298"