Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edna Cintron


 * 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 delete and redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (A–G). Salvio giuliano 15:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Edna Cintron

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tragic, but not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Was deprodded without valid rationale or improvement.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women,  and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Not meeting GNG. The sources used are about other things that "name drop" her. She wasn't notable before passing away; being a victim is sad, but nothing notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I found coverage of her last moments in ProQuest and added it in. Coverage of her also was occurring 5 years later and in 2016 (e.g. Daly, M. (2016). 15 years of donald trump's 9/11 lies, insults, and slights: The new yorker has a huge history of indifference and contempt for the darkest day in his city's history.) Article meets WP:GNG CT55555 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per CT55555. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As CT55555 pointed out, she has received enough coverage for this history to be notable. // MitYehor (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Surely, the page needs work, and should be improved, but as other users have pointed out, she clearly is notable enough to have a page. As such, I fundamentally disagree with the reasoning of Oaktree b and the OP.Historyday01 (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: It would be very helpful if proposed references could be actually linked to and discussed, rather than handwaved toward. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO1E. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge to any 9/11 related article per WP:BLP1E. All of the 3 criteria discussed in the guideline are met. First, Cintron is only discussed in terms of one event (9/11). Secondly, the person was a low-profile individual. She was not notable outside the attack. Thirdly, Cintron did not play a key role in the event nor was extensively covered. The proposed references barely mention Cintron, with best one being . There should multiple sources like this to warrant a seperate article.
 * The L in BLP stands for "living". It doesn't apply here. CT55555 (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why there's WP:BIO1E.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete then Redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (A–G) - available sources do not appear sufficiently reliable or in-depth to support or expand this article per WP:BASIC, and WP:BIO1E appears to apply. For example, the 2013 Omega: Journal of Death & Dying article at p. 350 includes her as one of many "falling civilians", as follows: "“The Waving Woman of 9/11” captures video footage of Edna Cintron (a confirmed decedent from WTC 1, who popular culture websites claim is the woman waving); she waves for attention as she stands in the gaping hole made by the plane (Webfairy.org, 2012)"; in 9/11 TWENTY YEARS LATER. By: MUIR, DAVID, SAWYER, DIANE, ROBERTS, ROBIN, News Special Report (ABC), 9/11/2021, she is listed, along with many others; similarly in Victims of September 11, 2001, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, Special Issue: Democratic Governance in the Aftermath of September 11, 2001 (Sep., 2002), pp. 6-15 (JSTOR); it appears the Sunday Times covers her as one of many subject to a "bizarre conspiracy theory" (Smith, David James. Sunday Times; London (UK) [London (UK)]. 04 Sep 2011: 40) but I cannot access the article via ProQuest; and there are two WP:DAILYBEAST articles, one on titled "15 Years of Donald Trump's 9/11 Lies, Insults, and Slights: The New Yorker has a huge history of indifference and contempt for the darkest day in his city's history" Daly, Michael. The Daily Beast, New York: The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC. Sep 9, 2016. "...Trump had spoken of standing at his apartment window and possessing such remarkable eyesight that he could see the jumpers four miles south. The woman in the photo--identified as Edna Cintron, an administrative assistant who had been working there to augment the income of her family flower shop in Harlem--is believed to have become one of those forced by the flames to leap. To look at that photo of her in her final moments at the abyss is to know that telling lies about her or about those who perished with her are far more heinous lies than such a standard politician's fib..." and 18 Years of Donald Trump’s 9/11 Lies, Insults, and Slights (Daly, Daily Beast, updated 2019, the same text). The current article uses "alleged" in the lead about her identity as 'the waving woman' but a more certain tone in WP:WIKIVOICE in the main article, sourced to reddit and this book, which claims, inter alia, "The evidence proves that powerful Zionists ordered the 9/11 attacks". The NYT obit and the Independent obit can be added as references for her name at the redirect target. Beccaynr (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: "Delete then redirect" is suggested by one editor above... huh? Why?  Redirecting would preserve the substantial information in the article, and even if it stays as a redirect and is never expanded, that could facilitate future editing at the redirect target.  I dunno, is the call in order to be mean and/or emphatic somehow, that one really really hates the information or something?  One really wants to stamp it out, so that the next person arriving to create an article on the topic is at a further disadvantage?
 * I am not sure whether the article, which is poignant, should be kept or not, but I OPPOSE "delete then redirect" in the name of honesty and decency and respect for past, current, and future editors. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 08:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I had hoped the source analysis helped explain why preserving the independent and reliable sources (i.e. the NYT and Independent obits as links at the redirect target) and deleting this article seems best for the encyclopedia. Our WP:SALT policy does not appear to apply unless the article is repeatedly recreated, but if another editor tries to assert WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims based on allegations made by 'popular culture websites', "a website hosted by a “9/11 Conspiracy” theorist", reddit, 'bizarre conspiracy theories', a mention in the WP:DAILYBEAST used for commentary about Trump, and a book promoting anti-semitic conspiracy theory, that can be addressed in the future. The poor-quality sourcing reviewed above does not appear to support her WP:BASIC notability - it is at best sensationalism, which our policies recognize that even generally reliable sources are not immune from promoting, and we are encouraged to do better, including when we are talking about fringe theories. From my view, this appears to be a straightforward WP:BIO1E, but given the poorly-sourced allegations and conspiracies added and suggested as support for keeping this article, the damage in the edit history appears to be beyond fixing, so deletion before a redirect seems appropriate for protecting the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (A–G). I agree with 's handy analysis. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2023 (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.