Wikipedia:9/11 victims

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:9
You have new messages (last change).
This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should ask for broader input, for instance at the village pump.

There has been a great deal of discussion about which 9/11 victims should have their own pages, and there is still some strong disagreement.

Articles on victims are frequently but sporadically listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Similar arguments are regularly repeated for each page as it appears, sometimes from the same people, sometimes from new participants. This page seeks to lessen this duplication of effort when such a page is created and proposed for deletion, both by summarising existing decisions so that old hands don't need to repeat their contributions and by bringing new participants on Vfd up to date on what has gone before.

There are also several discussions and positions in the Meta Wikipedia; see below.

Contents

[edit] The policy

The proposed policy is that being a 9/11 victim does not in itself qualify anyone for an article. Victims of 9/11 should be treated in the same way as any other people when deciding whether or not they should have biographical articles in Wikipedia. No-one has ever disputed this policy, but it is included here just to make that fact clear.

9/11 victims who qualify for inclusion according to the same criteria that apply to other people do not lose this qualification simply because of the way that they died, of course. There seems to be general agreement that Mychal F. Judge, for example, qualifies for an article, even though he died in the attacks. This implies that articles on 9/11 victims may not be removed from Wikipedia without first being listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for the usual time period. They are not candidates for speedy deletion.

[edit] The problem

The problem is that there is much disagreement about what criteria need to be satisfied to have a biographical article in Wikipedia. This is a general concern, applying equally to all biographical articles. However, many people have misunderstood this, believing that there are people who want the 9/11 victims to be treated differently. This misunderstanding has been the source of much confusion.

As noted on Wikipedia:Importance (and discussed on Wikipedia talk:Importance), there is no consensus that lack of fame or importance of a subject is sufficient reason for deleting an article on that subject. A disagreement on a general principle implies disagreement on any particular instance of that principle, of course. There should be no need for anyone to repeat their arguments for every individual case if their argument for the general principle is known. It follows that any individual deletion taking place for reasons of lack of fame or importance does not have consensus support, regardless of who happened to take part in the discussion of the individual case on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

However, such deletions do persistently take place. Although they are sometimes contested on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, the decisions to delete are usually upheld, because the present undeletion policy does not recognise the idea that deletions are only valid if there is a consensus for deletion.

[edit] Proposed rationale for the policy

The idea that being a 9/11 victim does not in itself qualify anyone for an article follows from the fact that being a 9/11 victim is not necessarily verifiable.

For such a fact to be verifiable, it would need to have been published. There are few Wikipedians who support the inclusion of information that has not previously been published (see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research). On the other hand, there are many Wikipedians who hold the opinion that any material which has been published, and which is still accessible to the general public, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It follows that such Wikipedians support the inclusion of information on any 9/11 victim who has, for example, had a death notice published in a newspaper now held in a public archive (e.g. on the Web).

For related information, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Note that the second of these remains a proposal, not a policy.

[edit] The memorial

Because of the great interest in recognising the 9/11 victims, a memorial website has been established, separate from the encyclopaedia. While originally intended for tributes, not neutral encyclopaedia articles, as of May 2004 the website seems to allow neutral articles alongside tributes. However, since Wikipedia and the 9/11 Wiki are separate projects with very different aims, the presence of an article on one site implies nothing about the suitability of an article in the other.

If a Wikipedia article on a 9/11 victim is unverifiable, has intractable NPOV problems, or otherwise fails to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is normally moved or merged to the memorial site, without leaving a redirect.

[edit] Procedure for moving pages

Pages to be moved from English Wikipedia to the Memorial Wiki are listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

Any appropriate article and talk page contents are moved or merged to the Memorial Wiki by the transwiki process; see below. This can occur at any time. If the decision is to keep, both articles are kept. Editors in the respective wikis are then responsible for deciding what text is appropriate for each, by the normal editing process.

If the decision is to delete, the entry is deleted after the normal period. No redirect or history is kept in the English Wikipedia. People searching the English Wikipedia for a particular name will find the list of victims, which links to the Memorial Wiki.

[edit] Transwiki

The transwiki process from the English Wikipedia to the 9/11 Memorial Wiki is a specialised one. It can be performed by any editor; Administrative rights are not required.

  • The article is listed in the English Wikipedia transwiki log as normal.
  • A new article is created in the 9/11 Memorial Wiki main article namespace, unless an article for the person already exists.
    • Check the list of tributes to see whether an article already exists in the Memorial Wiki.
    • If it doesn't, edit the page to add the name to the list.
    • Follow this new link to create the new page.
  • The text from the Wikipedia article is copied and pasted into the Memorial Wiki article.
  • Any significant contents of the talk page of the Wikipedia article are copied to the talk page of the Memorial Wiki article.
  • The history of the Wikipedia article is copied and pasted into the talk page of the Memorial Wiki article.
  • Whatlinkshere should be checked, and the links, if applicable, should be moved to link to the September 11th wiki directly.
  • Finally and optionally, if an existing article is being merged, refactoring may be performed to integrate the two texts.

The transwiki process preserves the list of authors as required by the GFDL, but unlike a move within a single Wiki does not preserve the full history. This will be resolved once the import function is added to the MediaWiki software, which should occur in version 1.3. Until then, you are encouraged to export the full history using Special:Export and save it somewhere in the sep11 wiki, in anticipation of future import.

The process for the Memorial Wiki is simpler than other transwiki moves because there is neither a Transwiki namespace nor a Transwiki log in the Memorial Wiki. These are not required assuming that:

  • Transwiki moves take place only to the Memorial Wiki.
  • Moves are always from the English Wikipedia.
  • Any English Wikipedia editor is ipso facto a competent Memorial Wiki editor. There are no special rules or standards to learn or observe.

[edit] Other relevant sites and pages

[edit] List of victims and Memorial Wiki

Wikipedia maintains a list of the victims, and because of the great interest in further recognising them, a special website has been established for tributes. The content of new articles about victims who do not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia is normally moved or merged to this site, without leaving a redirect.

[edit] Meta Wikipedia

See also the following Meta pages:

[edit] Other pages

See also:

Many other relevant pages are linked to from the archived discussions below.

[edit] Archived discussions

Feel free to add more examples, when discussion has finished on the original page. In the case of VfD, this means after the vote has closed, and please also note any action taken as a result and when. If and when any of these sections grow too big we'll create separate pages for them.

Archived discussions should not of course be modified! For subsequent discussion see this article's talk page, accessible by the discuss this page link below.

[edit] From the Village Pump

[edit] 9/11 Victims Policy

Can anyone tell me what the current policy is on the deletion of 9/11 victims' articles, and where a discussion is or was taking place about this policy? Cheers. -- Graham :) | Talk 17:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's pretty much been decided that 9/11 people go into the Memorial wiki.

AFAIK there is no policy. Originally the plan was to move the POV and original research information to 9/11 wiki and keep the NPOV and verifiable information here. But lately people have been ignoring this and listing NPOV and verifiable 9/11 people on VfD, many of them successfully being deleted. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 01:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Was this plan archived anywhere so that we can retrieve it, rather than reinvent the wheel? Andrewa 02:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_to_do_with_entries_related_to_September_11_casualties
Reviewing that page, it seems clear to me that the intention was that only people who were famous or otherwise encyclopedia-worthy independently of their involvement in 9/11 stay in the Wikipedia, and other entries go to Wikimemorial. Nowhere does it suggest that all 9/11 victims automatically get to have an NPOV entry in addition to their Wikimemorial page. Bearcat 03:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's as I read it too, and I think it's a good policy and has general although not universal support. The other meta pages linked to it, Meta:Dealing with September 11 pages and Meta:What to do with entries related to September 11 casualties, seem to support this line too, although again there is a great variety of opinions expressed along the way. Andrewa 09:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It looks to me like a lot of these articles were already moved to sep11 at least once before, but have reappeared back on en since then. How about replacing those reappearing articles with transwiki redirects? Bryan 09:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere on that page an expression of the people needing to be encyclopedia-worthy independently of their involvement in 9/11. The fact that they are encyclopedia-worthy should be enough. As for them having two pages, the original solution was to move the POV information to the talk page. So presumably only this information was to be moved to sep11 wiki. That way you're not duplicating information. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 11:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's a confusing way to state the issues IMO. The fundamental question seems to be, Does being a 9/11 victim of itself make a person worthy of a Wikipedia article? and there seems to be general consensus that it doesn't. This consensus has been affirmed by many VfD discussions and by more general discussions, such as this one, but it's not shared by yourself, obviously. But then, you seem to want to include every person in Wikipedia, whether notable or not. Or have I misunderstood you? Andrewa 13:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Considering that there is no consensus on whether lack of fame or importance should be a criterion for deletion, there obviously isn't consensus on whether someone who is famous and important for being a 9/11 victim should be deleted. In a perfect world, yes, every person would have an article in Wikipedia. We don't exist in that world, though. An NPOV and verifiable article cannot be written about most people. But for these 9/11 victims one can. anthony (see warning) 02:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 victim articles from VfD

We don't need to have every debate archived here, but we should try to preserve the record and discussion of any new ideas and issues that arise.

(most recent first as it's easier to add them in that order)

[edit] Lynn Angell

  • Not informative. Non-famous. Talk page includes a hateful prayer. Oh, and don't we have a separate wiki for 9-11? — Xoder | Talk 20:37, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hateful? I would HOPE so. Move to memorial wiki. RickK | Talk 02:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • "It's cool to hate", The Offspring, song of the same title </sarcasm>— Xoder|&#9998 15:17, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • In addition, the prayer has so many grammatical errors that I was tempted to edit it, but I couldn't bring myself to it — Xoder|&#9998 15:21, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to 9/11 wiki. Ashibaka ✎ 21:04, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete -- Cyrius | Talk 21:46, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete. BTW I've just created a proposed policy at Wikipedia:9/11 victims, feel free to discuss and modify, I know you will. Andrewa 01:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete. Jacob1207 02:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added a little content. Everyking 03:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • The added content still boils down to "died on 9/11". Nothing else of note. Wikimemorial. Rossami 03:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete. Merely being married to a top sitcom producer doesn't make someone encyclopaedic in their own right, so not worthy of inclusion pre 9/11. Average Earthman 11:19, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps not, but worthy of inclusion post-9/11. Everyking 20:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cribnotes 23:42, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to sep 11 wiki and delete. Maximus Rex 07:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • move n delete. --Jiang 10:49, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Result: Deleted 7 April 2004.

[edit] Gerard Barbara

Another September 11 victim. Adam Bishop 05:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Memorial and delete - at least this one's NYFD. -- Cyrius | (talk) 05:23, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete. Being a deputy fire chief is worthy of respect, but not encyclopaedic. Average Earthman 10:06, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Worthy of inclusion. Everyking 14:01, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Worthy of inclusion why? Bearcat 14:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Verifiable and useful for social context. Also marginally famous as a participant in a historical event. And if you insist something has to be widely famous to be worth an article, I expect most of Wikipedia will be nominated for deletion soon. Everyking 17:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete and redirect link from Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York. Niteowlneils 16:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. BL 00:32, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alex S 03:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deputy chief. What is NPOV or non-verifiable? It's already more than a one-line stub. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 11:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikimemorial and delete. ("and Yankee's fan"??? Come on. Do you think this article can ever be NPOV'ed and verified and still have enough left to be more than a one line sub-stub?) Rossami 22:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Interesting case. Already an adequate stub, unlike many 9/11 victim articles. The question of whether useful material can ever be added is the important one IMO. Another important discussion to archive at Wikipedia:9/11 victims when closed.Andrewa 20:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to 9/11 memorial and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:42, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to sep 11 wiki and delete. Maximus Rex 07:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • we deleted the chief, so move and delete this one too. --Jiang 10:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Result: Deleted 7 April 2004.

[edit] Levy Quinn, Leonard Taylor, Lisa M. King-Johnson, Toshiya Kuge

Non-famous 9/11 victims. Move to Sep 11 wiki and delete. --Jiang 08:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - the attack was famous, these people are just dead. -- Cyrius | Talk 15:32, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. They are verifiable, they were involved in a historical event, and they add social context to one's understanding of the attacks. Everyking 16:35, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • We can verify people at numerous historical events, but that doesn't mean every one of them deserves an article. -- Cyrius | Talk 17:23, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete, after copying anything relevant to Sep 11 wiki as normal. I thought this discussion was settled long ago. Andrewa 20:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Settled? More like ossified. Anyways, transwiki and delete. -Sean 22:52, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Move to the wikimemorial and delete. This argument appears to have turned into two people with one view who won't concede that they are in the minority, and everyone else with the over.Average Earthman 12:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. What everyking said. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice)
  • Move to wikimemorial and delete, as is policy for all such entries. Bearcat 03:09, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikimemorial and delete Rossami 17:08, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 9/11 and 11M victims are encyclopedic.Vfd 19:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Move to the sep11 wiki first. Maximus Rex 23:06, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to 9/11 wiki and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikimemorial and delete. Why do we have to go through this same lengthy procedure every time a new 9/11 name comes forward. This shouldn't even be policy by now - it's almost tradition. Denni 00:58, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
    • Comment: I will of course be archiving this discussion at Wikipedia:9/11 victims, which is a response to this and several other requests for a policy. Andrewa 19:43, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to 9/11 Wiki and delete. Put relevant material where people are more likely to be looking for it. --Skyfaller 04:24, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)
    • Comment: By material, do you mean this discussion, or the contents of the deleted articles? Anyway, I hope both will happen. Andrewa 14:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Already transwiki'd to Sep11: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Angela. 18:48, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks like a copy/paste move to me. anthony (see warning) 17:06, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Until the special:import is working properly, it might well look like that. However, this is fixable later, and no reason not to delete these now. Angela. 17:13, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Result: All deleted 06 April 2004.

[edit] Donald Adams, Falkenberg family, Robert Fangman, Ronald Gamboa

Some unfamous people who were unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time, all have been moved to the 9/11 wiki.--Jiang 05:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep all. Marginally famous participants in a historical event. Everyking 05:13, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • not marginally famous. --Jiang
  • Delete - since moved to 9/11 memorial - Texture 07:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - redundant, not famous. -- Cyrius 12:58, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:09, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only Leslie A Whittington (Falkenberg family) appears to have been of any note before 9/11. Memorial is the suitable place for these. Average Earthman 17:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've made a Leslie A. Whittington/Leslie Whittington page--a major re-write of this article, emphasising her, her career/contributions (I added some, but it still needs more details, hence Stub tag), and her background. Niteowlneils 02:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sad, but such is life. Wally 03:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Unfamous" is not an agreed reason for deletion, so this is not a valid listing. See Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance, where you will find about twenty votes against the principle of deleting articles for this reason, which can of course all be considered votes against any individual application of the principle. -- Oliver P. 02:31, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • At Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance, you will also find almost fifty votes in favor of the principle with several rational reasons why fame can and should be a useful filter. Rossami
    • Yes, there are almost fifty votes in favour of the principle, but 50 votes to 20 is not even close to a consensus, and one cannot claim consensus in applying a principle to an individual case if the principle doesn't even have consensus support itself. If there are "rational reasons" for deleting articles on non-famous people, then bring them up on a policy talk page, and try to convince us that these reasons are valid. Then, when a policy has been agreed, you can start listing articles according to that policy. Until there is such a policy, this continual deletion of articles on non-famous people is contrary to the principal of consensus decision-making which is the basis of how this project works. Oh, and by the way, although votes against a principal can be taken as votes against any individual application of the principle, votes for a principal cannot be taken as votes for any individual application of the principle, so there is a clear majority of relevant votes in support of keeping these particular articles. :) -- Oliver P. 20:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • As I pointed out previously, if you're going to play this game, let's also bring in the many votes already cast in support of "9/11 victims go to Wikimemorial unless the person was encyclopedia-worthy for other reasons" (which, just for the record, applies to none of the above). Bearcat 04:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Wik 03:49, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Result: All deleted 30 March 2004.

[edit] Other similar pages from VfD

[edit] Madrid victims

• BRASERO MURGA FLORENCIO • BOGDAN LIVIA • BODEA ANCA VALERIA • BENITO SAMANIEGO RODOLFO • BEN SALAH IMDDAOUAN SANAE • BEDOYA GLORIA INES • BARAJAS DIAZ GONZALO • BARAHONA IMEDIO FRANCISCO JAVIER • BALLESTEROS IBARRA SUSANA • BADAJOZ CANO MIGUEL ANGEL • AVILA JIMENEZ ANA ISABEL • ASTOCONDOR MASGO NEIL HEBE • ARENAS BARROSO ALBERTO • APARICIO SOMOLINOS MARIA NURIA • ANDRIANOV ANDRIYAN ASENOV • ALVAREZ GONZALEZ MARIA JOSEFA • ALONSO RODRIGUEZ JUAN ALBERTO • AGUADO ROJANO FLORENCIO • ACERO USHIÑA LILIANA GUILLERMINA • ABRIL ALEGRE OSCAR • ABAD QUIJADA EVA BELEN==

All non famous. Should be treated the same as 9//11 victims theresa knott 13:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Treat the same as 9/11 - list the names, but not a separate article for each. DJ Clayworth 14:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as a list only -and only if we can get all the names. Rmhermen 14:42, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rmhermen. Keep as a list only, no need for each to have his or her own page (unless they are particularly notable). Jacob1207 16:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Non-famous and non-encylopædic; delete all. Psychonaut 17:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that they should be treated the same as 9/11 victims. However, that means they should have tribute/memorial pages somewhere--either we should set up a separate memorial site for this event like the 9/11 memorial and move them there, or we should rename the 9/11 memorial page so they qualify, and move them there. Niteowlneils 17:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikimorial them all, delete them here. — Sverdrup 17:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • These could all be speedy deletion candidates since they consist of nothing other than "$firstname was a victim of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks". Have the above voters looked at these pages before voting? There are no "articles" to move anywhere. Maximus Rex 17:27, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, you're right, I didn't look at them first. And the main article doesn't even link to these. But I still believe we need to have some place to handle actual tributes. And should have links to them (if they get created) from the main article. Niteowlneils 17:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I have added all of these names to the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks article. They can be deleted under speedy deletion since, as described by Max Rex, they consist of nothing more than a single line that is now fully featured in the main article. - Texture 17:42, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not redirect all to Madrid attacks page, thus deleting the risk of them being recreated later? -- Graham :) | Talk 18:47, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • They have been deleted from the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks page as the list is incomplete. If any are listed, then all must be. Arwel 18:57, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • If we waited for an article to be complete berfore it was allowed on Wikipedia we would wait for ever. Put back the ones we know about and let people add others. DJ Clayworth 20:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I would have voted keep, but I see now that they've all been redirected. Way to go. Everyking 20:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • WIKIPEDIANS ARE STUPID - DON'T BE STUPID AND FACE THE FACT: WIKIPEDIA IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, NOT A COMPLETE ENCYCLOPEDIA. OK???? Awe! 21:08, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - New list under discussion at Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid attacks - Texture 23:05, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete all (redirects included); they did nothing famous but die. Caps are not appropriate either. --Jiang 00:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Fame is fame, regardless of whether it comes in death. That is what's so seriously in error with the deletion of all these articles, 9/11 victims included. If the articles still existed, they could all be moved to proper titles. Everyking 01:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all individual articles including redirects. Keep as a list, even if incomplete. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive encyclopedia of obituaries and dying a tragic death is not in itself sufficient for inclusion. Global search is good enough way to locate names on the list if there is not other information about the victim. Dpbsmith 13:44, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. What a mess. Caps are inappropriate in the titles, even for a redir. If any significant information was added and has been merged elsewhere or justifies an article under the correct name, then we may need to merge histories, but the one I checked was just the name of a victim and I hope they are all like it. I can't see any point in my checking the others as the underthanked sysop who cleans all this up will need to check them anyway. Andrewa 20:26, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't we have a memorial wiki for these things? - Fennec 16:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Result: All deleted 29 March 2004.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../9/2F/1/Wikipedia%7E9_11_victims_48de.html"