Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usman Khan (militant)

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 Procedural close/keep or merge procedual close as ongoing merge discussion. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Khan (militant) (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)

The subject of this article exactly fits criteria #8 of the reasons for deletion section in the deletion policy. That is, the subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, which is the people notability guideline, and specifically the section on the perpetrtors of a crime which says A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. And there is such an existing article, 2019 London Bridge stabbing, which covers him in the 'Attacker' section. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge - Seems like a pretty good WP:BLP1E example. NickCT (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There's already a merge discussion open, which should probably take less time to conclude than this AfD will be open. I'm not sure it's a good idea to split the conversation by having a deletion discussion here at the same time. So far the argument for keeping the article seems to be that Khan is notable for two different criminal events covered widely at the time, i.e. the 2019 attack and the 2010 London Stock Exchange plot. The argument against is that there's not a great deal to say about the 2010 plot and it might as well all be folded into the 2019 page, at least until such time as length considerations mean it needs to be split out. I don't have a settled view one way or the other but I lean slightly towards merge at this point. › Mortee _talk 19:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. This is getting very messy, what with disjointed discussions at more than one location. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He's notable for more than one event, although the first event - Stock Exchange Bombing Plot - doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia article. Even if he was only notable for one event, see this: Mohamed Atta, which suggests this 'notable for one event' policy isn't always adhered to. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to Mohamed Atta because that article is not a BLP. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, see John Hinckley Jr.. This one is mentioned in the MOS as an example of where a separate article is justified. The current subject is similar to this. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I regard Khan's article as more justified than Hinckley's, due to the latter's notability arising solely from one crime. Khan is notable due to multiple, separate crimes, years apart. Jim Michael (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with 2019 London Bridge stabbing. The crime he committed is notable. He isn't. This is Paul (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2019 London Bridge stabbing as per WP:BLP1E Fangfufu (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Khan is not a BLP1E, being also notable for his previous plots. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge with 2019 London Bridge stabbing. His crime of 2010 can be mentioned there as it's also a relevant event. It is not him as a person who is relevant. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Keep The subject was arrested in 2010 and convicted in Feb 2012 and released early in Dec 2018 Sky News London Bridge killer Usman Khan was convicted terrorist recently freed from jail.The coverage about the subject goes back to 2008 when BBC interviewed him as per this 2008 interview and BBC Interview 2008 and passes WP:GNG and WP:RAPID as this is ongoing news and is not a WP:BLP1E .In this case he was convicted for terrorism and sentenced to 16 years in jail and this only the second case.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 2019 London Bridge stabbing, WP:BLP1E + add a section about him on the page? dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 22:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with 2019 London Bridge stabbing - WP:BLP1E. Subject of article had not gained notoriety until these recent events. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In no way does the BLP1E policy apply here. On the contrary, the subject is notable for his terrorism conviction in 2012, arising from terrorist activity in 2010 that included a conspiracy to create a terrorist camp in land his family owns in Kashmir (Pakistan).^[1]. That's a 2012 source, for example, as are the sources from 2008 already cited. The subject was sentenced to a life sentence for these acts, though on appeal the sentence was reduced, with self-evident results. XavierItzm (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject althought the perpetrator in the 2019 London Bridge stabbing is notable in himself:
  • Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the subject.
  • Has previous notable criminal and terrorist activities which was covered by reliable media.
  • Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.Tabletop123 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Everything about him, including his prior conviction, can be covered adequately in 2019 London Bridge stabbing. WWGB (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's plenty of useful information here. Also see the comment of Tabletop123. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:BLP1E (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event) does not apply here because the subject is, er, not living. The relevant guideline is WP:BIO1E. Opera hat (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Last I checked BLP also applies for the recently deceased. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. It would fit perfectly merged in to 2019 London Bridge stabbing. He isn't notable, only his crimes. TheEpTic (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2019 London Bridge stabbing per WP:BIO1E. Nothing else he ever did was notable enough to warrant an article. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because he's notable for separate terrorist involvement both in the UK & Pakistan. If the London Bridge stabbing was the only crime he'd been involved in, I'd agree that he'd not warrant an article. The Stock Exchange plot is also notable enough for its own article.
  This AfD should not have been started whilst a merge discussion is underway on Talk:2019 London Bridge stabbing. Jim Michael (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as of today. Sourced article. Per WP:GNG which criterias are good as of today. And again, as always Why have a Merge discussion and a AfD at the sams time.BabbaQ (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I request that this AfD which was initiated after the Merge discussion was started to be closed. We can not have two merge/delete/keep discussion going on at the same time.BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least be frozen until the talk page discussion has been completed. Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nom focusses on one event, which clearly doesn't apply here. Notable due to several events, so BLP1E doubly doesn't apply, nor does BIO1E. Widefox; talk 09:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Policy guidelines are pretty clear at WP:CRIME which states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." That article now exists and previous criminal history can easily go there. This vote is a duplicate of the one left at the merge discussion. Mramoeba (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. For the exact same reasons articulated above by Mramoeba .Hmcst1 (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In terms of written material, this article is now of a reasonable length. To merge it with the suggested article might leave that article somewhat unbalanced, and containing a significant amount of material not directly related to the event. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, Fails WP:GNG.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – his notability is for more than the one event. If this article goes, then we either have to lose background data, or shoehorn it awkwardly into the other article and risk making it unbalanced with waffle about Stoke or whatever. This is a much better repository for that stuff. 82.39.96.55 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User: Mramoeba Plutonium27 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedurel close A merge discussion is already open and hence this be be closed .We cannot have two merge/delete/keep discussion going on at the same time.Please not eht merge discussion was open before this AFD was opened.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject of the bio is notable for more than just the one event and was previously convicted of participation in another terrorist plot prior to the London Bridge incident. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge There are multiple notable events, but I’m agnostic WRT whether they should be covered in an independent article or in the article about the terrorist attack that he actually carried out. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The person is now deceased but was at the center of the 2019 London Bridge stabbing and additionally was a British citizen who had previous encounters with police also on domestic terrorism charges. Bus stop (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The complicated political row caused by his ability to carry out the attack needs the context of his previous conviction, and trying to shoehorn that into the main article would make it difficult to see the wood for the trees. Having a single article with a linear description of his conviction, appeal and subsequent attack makes the events, and the row, more comprehensible. --Thisischarlesarthur (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The culprit was already arrested related to a terror incident prior to this stabbing attack. The subject fulfills the WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 09:08, 2 December 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.