Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond R. York

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 Delete. If anyone wants the info for another site, please contact me or another administrator. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond R. York

Sad but WP:NOT a memorial Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like a copyvio. BUT: what if we had WikiProject:9/11 victims, and profiles for all 3000? I bet then it'd be cool, no? Any takers? No vote from this (Greater) New Yorker - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: IIRC, we had a Wikimedia wiki dedicated for 9/11 victims which has since been closed. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain. -AED 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, MemoryWiki is far more suited for this. Apart from the method of his death, this chap is unfortunately generally non-notable. No offense meant to the family, it's just that this is not the proper place for this article. --Golbez 05:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Conrad Devonshire 05:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I am publicly calling on the nominator to follow procedure, especially in this extra-sensistive case, and write a note on the creator's talk page. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this should probably go on sep11.wikipedia.org. Fagstein 07:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete --wkpdia mistaken for a memorial website? -- max rspct leave a message 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• transwiki to sep11.wikipedia.org M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have broader concerns about how Wikipedia handles notability when it comes to crime victims (versus criminals). We have many articles on Wikipedia about notable criminals. If not for the criminal act or incident that gave them notability, they are not notable. This is the case for each of the 19 hijackers. But, somehow Wikipedia judges them notable because of their criminal act is highly notable. Under the very same standard, the victims of these notorious criminals/incidents are also notable. I disagree with the double-standard applied to criminals of notorous crimes versus their victims. If we delete this article, then perhaps the hijacker articles should also go, except maybe Mohammed Atta which is more a familiar name than the others. And in some cases, Wikipedia has allowed articles on crime victims. For example, we have an article on both Laci Peterson (and Scott Peterson), as well as Natalee Holloway, Chandra Levy, JonBenét Ramsey, and others going back to the victims of Jack the Ripper. None were notable until their murders. I disagree with the double-standard applied here, with these crime victims versus 9/11 victims. If we delete this article, then the articles about Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway, Chandra Levy, JonBenét Ramsey, and other crime victims need to be deleted. In all we need more uniformity in how we apply WP:BIO to both criminals and crime victims, as well as among victims of various notorious crimes. Of course Wikipedia is not a memorial. Any crime victim articles on Wikipedia need to be handled in an encyclopedic manner, be properly cited, verifiable, and NPOV. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In the case of 9/11, I understand that people object to having nearly 3000 individual articles, and object to treating 9/11 differently than other terrorist incidents. (e.g. American invasion of Iraq). Perhaps a solution would be merely a list of victims (rather than 3000 articles), similar to Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings#Fatalities, with a brief one-liner (e.g. "Lee Baisden, 34, an accountant from Romford (East London)") for each. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I also understand that http://sep11.wikipedia.org will likely be closed, thus eliminating the option for transwiki. On "7 July 2005" Trilobite deleted "Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks", with the reasoning being that it was transwikied to http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transwiki:Casualties_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks, as per vfd. With sep11 wiki being shut down, there's a void and I think this article needs to be transwikied back to enwiki. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I have been working on Wikipedia since 2003 and I seem to recall that we had a huge problem with memorial sites created for 9/11 victims. Also I must register my disagreement with Kmf164: we cannot reasonably list every victim of Pearl Harbor or other incidents on multiple pages. Contrastingly, many, many criminals are highly notable for their crimes and do deserve their own articles. - Abscissa 15:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In that case, lets delete Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings#Fatalities. I am against such double standards. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. What you linked to was a list, that's OK IMHO... but if each of those people had personal articles I would say delete. - Abscissa 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Also note that victims are listed in Columbine High School massacre, among some other articles. I understand complications of having individual articles for each victim (due to the shear number for 9/11 and many other incidents). But, somehow we need to find a place at least for a list. I would find such a list to be a helpful, encyclopedic reference. Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, I don't see why we can't find the space for such a list for 9/11 (and other notable incidents/crimes). Would it be such a problem to transwiki sep11:Transwiki:Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks back to enwiki, clean it up, and include such detailed listings), in the likely event that sep11 wiki be shut down? --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nominate it and I'll vote delete. Criminals are notable for their crimes, victims are not notable for being victims. - Abscissa 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. So, should we nominate Laci Peterson for deletion, as an example? I don't necessarily want to nominate, per WP:POINT, but disagree with this double-standard. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I don't see why she has her own article. I would merge it with Scott Peterson. -Abscissa 16:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Bizarre! Bytes are cheap, people. Person is notable, clearly. EVERY 9/11 victim got individual media coverage ad nauseam. Don't wanna write articles for all 3000? Fine. Let there be a list, or inconsistency, but once someone goes through and actually writes one, I am not aware of a WP policy that requires deletion. WP:BIO is met. - CrazyRussiantalk/contribs/email 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Then it should be easy to find "ad nauseam" articles on this victim. Once we have that, the subject becomes verifiable and will be kept. Fagstein 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, lists of the dead not great. Understandable that folk want to remember. Notable? First hand info/original research..? May, lead to en.wikipedia's canonisation (IMHO) of first world english speakers (and in a time of U.S imperial Iraq-wrecking/instigation). Why extend USTV coverage of 9/11?...folk keep putting these up with personal content... What about all passengers in corporate train crashes? There are already plenty of kidnap victims on here. More than an encyclopedia.. and where do we control the development.. proper style. Try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead People Server . -- max rspct leave a message 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The difference is, quite simply, this: individual in-depth coverage in multiple media sources for each victim. If your train crash meets that - include. Iraq was doesn't - except for that kid who went to London for a new arm. Isn't he on here? {Dunno name.) How about that 12 year old Palestinian kid caught in a crossfire Mohammed Al-Durra? How about the sniped on the playground Israeli toddler Shalhevet Pass? Individual in-depth coverage in multiple media sources meets WP:BIO. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks like we have nothing for Shalhevet Pass. That's a ridiculous oversight. I'll go write it now. See y'all. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Anyone wanna nominate that one, too? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom Barneyboo (Talk) 15:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki sep11.wikipedia.org It is an interesting article and there should be room for it somewhere, stills needs wikifying, better tone, and referencing though. There are several of these around e.g. Canal Hotel bombing rxnd ( t | € | c ) 22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the September 11 wiki. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A 45-year-old New York City Firefighter, two weeks from retirement, who risked his life at the World Trade Center after the planes hit, heading towards the site when all others were running for their lives and entering the North Tower minutes before it collapsed. Sounds notable to me. Very few of the 3,000 victims reach the level of the sacrifice made by Raymond R. York. Needs work, but it belongs where it is. Alansohn 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Heroism does not by itself confer notability. If he got some sort of important award for herosim posthumously or something then we'd have some sources with which to build an article. But we don't. Fagstein 04:18, 1 May 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.