Talk:Ahmed al-Ghamdi

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.--KGV (Talk) 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Any chance at a birthdate? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 13:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Added "citation needed" tags to sentences about al-Ghamdi's family as no source is given. BeefontheBone 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP1E#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event

states

The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.

Don't shoot the messenger. I am merely quoting Wikipedia policy. It is a policy, not just a guideline. Mrs.EasterBunny 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I disagree. Every other hijacker has a page, he should have one too. Soxred93 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're considering opposition to the existence of separate articles to the individuals themselves, then each group of hijackers should be merged into their own pages - something like List of Hijackers of United Flight 175, or something like that. KyuuA4 04:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you tried to create that article on your own. Then redirected it to 175 - and performed a copy paste merge. However, since these are the terrorist articles, better to move the material here: Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Also, as it stands, the 175 article already covers the event, not the people. KyuuA4 04:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like the blowback from an attempt to delete one of the hijacker articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marwan al-Shehhi) which was strongly rejected and closed as "groundless". The "Organizers" article is already a good "overview" article with links to individual articles, I can't see there being any consensus for either (1) deleting the individual articles or (2) making the "organizers" article over-long by merging (which is possibly why the individual articles were created in the first place?) As an aside, the BLP policy doesn't apply because the hijackers are all dead... Red6 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on that, removed merge. KyuuA4 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Groundless AFD was an incorrect determination. There was good grounds. It stayed for discussion in excess of 5 days. It was not speedily closed. Most other AFD's of the same days were concluded by day 5 but not Marwan's. This was because many adminis found the determination too difficult, not groundless. Therefore, I contend that there are grounds. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It had all of one delete vote - and not a single admin made any comment about the determination being "difficult". Don't misrepresent things, the beauty of wiki is that everything is archived. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I said this elsewhere, but let me repeat it here: the Marwan al-Shehhi AfD was a "groundless AfD." The overwhelming consensus was to keep. All of these 9-11 hijacker articles are about historical significant people. In addition, the person who made the AfD nomination stated he/she did it because "the victims of (9-11) terrorist attack articles are routinely deleted citing non-notability." The admin was being polite in saying this was a "groundless AfD." I'd probably have closed the AfD earlier with stronger words than that. There is no need to merge any of these articles.--Alabamaboy 20:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved at WP:AN. The AFD for Marwan al-Shehhi is now declared to be keep but was not a groundless AFD. Furthermore, the orginal administrator did not substantiate the comment of "groundless AFD". See diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=160782334 UTAFA 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I commented above and on the ANI that the AfD was indeed groundless and stated why. Please do not remove the comment from the AfD. And I notice that you are a new editor to Wikipedia. Perhaps that is why you misunderstand things like this discussion. I'm afraid one editor does not have the ability to "declare that this AFD is keep, striking out the "groundless" comment." That's a consensus decision, and it's probably not something we'd do in a case like this.--Alabamaboy 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

• Virginia DMV letter sent to investigators with AAG's photo confirming it is him Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ahmed al-Ghamdi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100807204647/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0915/Hijackers_may_have_taken_Saudi_identities%2B.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100807204647/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably sent

Why is probably on a wiki? This seems amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:E43F:9867:4CA3:8A3E:A917:E6EE (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)