Talk:Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami

Does this thing even exist?
Media reports are now saying that this group may not exist. Perhaps an article shouldn't exist either 69.86.225.27 (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that the organization might not have been a part of the Norwegian attacks, but that doesn't mean the facts are inaccurate. The article states that news sources reported that the organization was involved (which is indisputable)- not that the organization was involved.  Given that, I'm removing the disputed tag.  That tag is for articles where facts in the article are disputed, not statements in the press. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the statement saying the NYT quoted an unnamed expert "American official" saying this organization might not exist should be removed - Evidenced by what professor Karen Joy Greenberg says in her New Republic article (see citations) it clearly does.  I've tagged it with dubious (the statement by the NYT, not that the NYT reported it) and unless someone comes up with a good reason that statement should stay, I'm going to remove it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we have no objections, I have removed it. Toddst1 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * i disagree with the removal. iTs highly relevant,properly attributed and published in more than one RS. on the other hand, the information cited to the Middle East Observatory should be looked into further. wHo are they exactly? it seems to be a consulting group for hire and there are no members or authors listed for their reports.  T i a m u t talk 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even better, let's start it: Middle East Observatory. Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It appears to exist outside of the Norway incident
I found a reference to this group on May 3, related to the death of Osama bin Laden. Here: I have no time to add to the article, but I leave here in case anyone wants to do. Jgarpal (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not notable
This organization is not notable simply because it falsely claimed responsibility for the attacks on some website. Can somebody explain how this organization meets our notability criteria. This ought to go to AfD otherwise.Griswaldo (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see: Significant coverage coverage in a major reliable publication like, additional secondary sources that are independent of the subject .  I think that covers WP:GNG.
 * The scope of operations appears to be international and information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple third-party, independent, reliable sources covers WP:NGO.
 * Affiliation with Al Qaeda and being led by Abu Suleiman al-Naser doesn't hurt, although I'm not trying to imply any inherent notability. Toddst1 (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardign your final sentence - WP:NOTINHERETED. This organization was noted for an eye blink when they made that false claim - see WP:NTEMP for the relevant notability guideline language.  This does not meet WP:N.Griswaldo (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be failing to grasp what was written: "I'm not trying to imply any inherent notability." couldn't be any clearer acknowledging WP:NOTINHERETED.
 * You're confusing fame with WP:N. Yes it was instantly famous after the Norway incidents.  However activity from May 2011-present for a terrorist organization isn't exactly a blink. Toddst1 (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please figure out a way to address my arguments instead of addressing me -- e.g. "You seem to be failing ..." and "You're confusing ...". If there is no inherent notability then mentioning connections to others serves what purpose? Seems disingenuous to me.  I don't think being mentioned by a totally non-notable and possibly unreliable website for sending "an urgent message on jihadist forums, to all jihadists around the globe to mobilize and prepare to wage jihad operations against the Zionist-crusader alliance" once in May establishes notability. What other activity has this "terrorist organization" engaged in exactly from May till present? Clearly they are not famous, but they aren't even notable.Griswaldo (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to react negatively when valid criticism is presented. I'll disengage from this conversation now. Toddst1 (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It confuses me how being asked politely to refocus the discussion on content not contributors should lead to total disengagement from a conversation. If the points are not dealt with the next stop is indeed AfD, but nominating this article for deletion has nothing to do with any "pleasure" of mine as your original, unedited post suggested, it has to do with site policies.  Please do continue the dialogue, I would much rather see proof of notability than go to AfD.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami. 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/20110726101259/http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10080610 to http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10080610

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)