Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marwan al-Shehhi

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. Groundless AFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan al-Shehhi

Marwan al-Shehhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article should be merged with Mohammad Atta. al-Shehhi is a non-notable figure whose only claim to fame is killing people on September 11th. He is the subject of pratically no citations (unlike Atta) except mentioned in passing. The event, Septebmer 11th, is notable, not al-Shehhi. Goss9900 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Goss9900 00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ...the hell?, are you legally retarded? Should we merge Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels while we're at it? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are unaware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please read up, as that comment is totally inappropriate in tone. CitiCat ^♫ 03:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm aware thanks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Key participant in largest terrorist attack in history makes him notable. Suspect bad faith nomination considering the date. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 12 September 2007

(UTC)

You may suspect but you are incorrect. September 11th made me remember that the victims of terrorist attack articles are routinely deleted citing non-notability. Moussaoui and Atta, I can see. al-Shehhi, non-notable...sorry. Goss9900 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Nomination appears to be because of the fact that victim articles are routinely deleted, because Wikipedia is not memorial. Suspect that significant sources exist on this person, there have been so many books written on this attack that it seems impossible that this person is non-notable. IvoShandor 18:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets all the criteria for notability in my opinion. Like it or not mass murderers are notable. NOt trying to say victims mean nothing, because that would be wrong to say. It's just a different scale we are measuring them on. Fighting for Justice 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, simply notable. Punkmorten 06:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep -- Complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS.
  • WP:CSD#A7 explicitly says that the lack of a claim of notability should not be used to justify the deletion of controversial articles. I have been a wikipedia contributor for three years. For the last two years I have mainly been work on articles on controversial topics, mainly articles related to the "global war on terror". I work very hard to fully comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS.
  • There are wikipedians who want to suppress coverage of certain topics from the wikipedia, even if the articles covering those topics fully comply with {{npov}}, {{nor}} and {{rs}}, because they don't like those topics being covered. And, unfortunately, there are wikipedians who will misuse tags, including {{aafd}}, to suppress material they don't want covered.
  • Notability is a lousy yardstick for measuring the merits of articles on controversial topics -- because it is highly, highly sensitive to POV. IMO notability should be deprecated. I don't believe in astrology, iridology, or homeopathy. But I am not going to try to suppress those topics from the wikipedia. I expect those who contribute to articles on those topics to work hard to comply with {{npov}}, {{nor}} and {{rs}}, same as I do.
  • Even if the ranks of wikipedians somehow didn't include a single person who believed in astrology, iridology or homeopathy, it would still be important for us to cover them. I think I could write a fair, neutral stub on those topics. I think most of us could, if we really put our minds to it. We have to bring that kind of objectivity to our contributions.
  • But, it seems to me that too many of those claiming the authority of notability to justify deletion are not exercising enough objectivity to tolerate articles they don't like seeing being covered Too often these justifications for deletion are really a form of POV-pushing.
  • {{Npov}}, {{nor}} and {{rs}} are core policies.
    • {{WikiProject Biography}} is not a core policy.
    • {{WikiProject Biography}} is not a policy.
    • {{WikiProject Biography}} is just a guideline.
  • So far as I am concerned, for controversial topics, if we can find enough references to write an article of meaningful length that complies with {{Npov}}, {{nor}} and {{rs}} that is all the notability we need.
  • I don't know the nominator. So I will assume good faith, and assume that this nomination was an honest mistake. I urge them to reconsider their respect for notability as a meaningful criteria for justifying deletion.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan 16:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect with [[Hijackers of United Airlines flight 175]] - Each of the hijackers fail WP criteria of notability. Each hijacker is not the subject of a single reference, they are all mentioned only in passing. Their act is notable. However, the Hijackers of United Airlines flight 175 article covers the act and a brief biography of all of them, including al-Shehhi. There is a precedent to delete and redirect to the article of the attack. See this excerpt from administrator:
  

The result was redirect to the new article 1993 CIA shootings per Thomjakobsen's suggestion at the bottom of this discussion. The subject is notable only for his involvement in that event (see also WP:BLP1E). Sandstein 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Official Wikipedia policy is very clear in what to do in this AFD; Delete and Redirect. Wikipedia policy is clear that AFD's are not a vote. Therefore, with due respect to the opinions of the other editors, we should comply with Wikipedia policy and redirect the al-Shehhi article to United Airlines Flight 175 See [1] WP:BLP1E

Mrs.EasterBunny 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Correction: I've examined the logic and wikipedia policy actually says the article must be directed to "United Airlines Flight 175", not the "Hijackers of United Airlines Flight 175" The hijacker article (which I started) must be deleted along with al-Shehhi, according to WP:BLP1E. Sorry for the mixup. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: I'm not taking a position on this AfD, but we certainly don't need the individual hijacker articles and the detailed bios in Hijackers of United Airlines flight 175. If the individual articles are kept intact, the bios in Hijackers of United Airlines flight 175 should be removed and the list near the top should be linked to the individual articles. If these articles are converted to redirects but their content is kept in Hijackers of United Airlines flight 175, we will need attribution and links back to the original articles for GFDL compliance. There should probably also be a note on the redirect talk pages not to delete them for the same reason. Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung as he (and all the other 9/11 hi-jackers) has played a major role in one of the worst terrorist attacks ever. Has also significant sources though some portions are not sourced.--JForget 22:42, 16 September 2007 (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.