Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 11 victims

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 of the debate was speedy deleted by request of creator, closing AfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 08:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Airlines Flight 11 victims

This is nothing but a list of names. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Radiant_>|< 01:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Given the historical implications of the September 11 2001 attacks, this list may be of interest to journalists, authors, and other historians. -Ikkyu2 01:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Extremely notable and verifiable. It's not a memorial, it's a fact. Ifnord 01:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is definitely not a speedy keep. Please familiarize yourself with deletion policy. Radiant_>|< 01:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • My gut reaction is to take offense with what appears to be a snooty remark but I will assume good faith here. There is a grey area between policy and guideline in general on Wikipedia. Often an AfD will arise and a chorus of "speedy delete" (or "speedy keep", etc.) will rise up. A hoax, for example. Someone will always pipe up, "But that doesn't meet criteria..." No, perhaps not, but the AfD gets closed early if consensus is reached. Ifnord 02:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Material previously transwikied to the sept11 wiki and moved back as part of a debate. Violation of WP:POINT. Night Gyr 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that so? That would make it a speedy delete on grounds of A5 (transwikied articles) or G4 (recreation). Radiant_>|< 01:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Look at the edit history, it was recreated less than 24 hours ago by someone involved in the debate at the AFD for the casualties list for the london bombings. Also related to Deletion Review here, where bringing back the Sept. 11 casualty lists is facing stiff opposition.

Kaldari says there "My real hope is that we can migrate all the important NPOV content from the Memorial Wiki back to Wikipedia and then close, lock, or move the Memorial wiki so that it is no longer the lonely neglected step-child of the Wikimedia Foundation," but he's too impatient to wait for DRV, so this is an out-of-process recreation of deleted content. Night Gyr 01:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You guys are great at assuming bad faith. I actually created this article prior to the request for undeletion of the other article. Check the timestamps. And I certainly didn't create this article to prove a point. I honestly did not believe that the ban against memorials applied to simple lists of names (but perhaps other people believe differently). I did not think there would be any controversy about either creating this article or undeleting the other one. It is you, in fact, who have violated policy for not assuming good faith. Kaldari 02:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I also don't appreciate my words being taken out of context. If you read my entire request for undeletion, you'll see that I even say that I created this article first "to test the waters," not as part of a debate or to prove a point as you have accused. Why are you trying to attack me? Kaldari 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:ISNOT a memorial (explicitly). Notable poeple, yes, but none of this lot are independently notable. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The Wikipedia is not a memorial guideline says, "It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them." I don't think the article in question addresses sadness or honor; rather, the means of their demise was highly notable and a comprehensive, verified list of their names (and number) is part of the factual history of the highly notable event. -Ikkyu2 03:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ruby 01:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andy Saunders 02:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG's citation of official policy. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 02:01, Jan. 26, 2006
• Delete per nom. incog 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a memorial. Speedy keep vote is entirely inappropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Question. Do you guys consider Kent State shootings to be in violation of WP:ISNOT for listing the names of the four students who were killed? I'm just trying to get an idea here for what constitutes a "memorial". Kaldari 03:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Kent State shootings does not merely list a number of non-notable deceased people. --Ezeu 03:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw this argument on a different memorial list. There is no separate list of Kent State deceased like this article. Ruby 04:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. 23skidoo 03:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect - The main Wikipedia space is not for memorial lists, but there is a specific place for this: Here - this list definitely belongs there, and does not need to be repeated here. Eurosong 04:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons listed above. WP isn't the place for these things. goatasaur 04:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia should cover important events in detail. Golfcam 04:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: would be fine as part of an article on September 11, 2001 or American Airlines Flight 11, but the information doesn't belong in a separate list like this.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 04:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the other fundamental problem with a list like this is, what do you do with it? It's not really an article you can edit - it's already utterly complete. One might as well just permanently protect it on the grounds that nothing of substance can ever possibly be added or removed, and only vandalism is likely to occur. It's not a living, breathing encyclopedia article, but rather a stock, unchanging list of people who died in a past event. FCYTravis 05:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is full of lists like that. How about 77th Academy Awards nominees? I don't see how it being a static list is a valid criticism. Kaldari 05:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. I'm going to go ahead and speedy delete under G7. It looks like I created this article prematurely, as I didn't realize it would be so controversial. I still believe that the revevent policies are too vague on this subject and do not provide clear guidance. Until this issue is sorted out elsewhere, however, I will go ahead and remove this article. Kaldari 05:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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.