Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizwaan Sabir

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwaan Sabir

WP:BLP1E violation. Along with his "co-conspirator", this deserves maybe two or three sentences in the University of Nottingham article. There are no reliable sources on which to write a biography. This is the description of an event. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ both Rizwaan Sabir and Hicham Yezza either to a new article or, at the very least, a new section in Terrorism Act 2000. It should also be mentioned and linked in University of Nottingham. This was a serious story that caused real and ongoing concern in the UK and chaos at the University of Nottingham. There is definitely an article, or at least a decent sized section, in this incident and its ramifications, but not two biographies. The author has cast it wrong but the content is definitely notable, mostly well referenced, and usable if cleaned up and recast correctly. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Related article Hicham Yezza is also up for AfD at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hicham Yezza. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a historically notable case study of the excesses of the War on Terror; though possibly merged with his co-conspirator. But NOT merged to generic article. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hae no problems with changing the titles of the articles to refer to the event, but by referring to them as the people's names, this makes them biographies, and therefore under the purview of WP:BLP, which requires reliable sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Related article Hicham Yezza has now been closed as "Keep": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hicham Yezza. I can't see any logic in treating this one differently so I change my vote to keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I stated in the other AfD, everything about their "notability" ceneters on WP:BLP1E. No matter how many papers write about him, it still comes back to one event As for the other article passing AfD, I'll refer to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @838 · 19:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP-1E violation or rename and rewrite to address issues involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename . This is a major case with academic freedom implications. DGG (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an appropriate title for an article about the event and the legal and academic issues involved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. This event had no implications for academic freedom: Rizwaan Sabir is a student and under UK law students do not have academic freedom. For a full discussion of the case, refer to www.academicfreedom.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.23.174 (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Note: This manual is not a classified document. British and American counter-terrorism officials chose to publish this manual. I agree with DGG that this article should be kept because of the free speech and academic freedom aspects. There is nothing mundane about this case. I have noticed what seems to me to be a disturbing trend, in {{afd}} related to the "war on terror", a push to describe as "not-notable" all instances where security authoriites have trampled on traditional rights, as if the population of westernized industrial democracies had decided to ignore Benjamin Franklin's advice that "those who sacrifice liberty for security, will get neither..." Some {{afd}} participants act as if trampling on traditional freedoms was so routine, mundane, run of the mill, that it was never worthwhile to cover these incidents. No, the populations of westernized industrial democracies have not agreed to sacrifice personal liberty for security. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 18 July 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.