Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks


 * 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. This is a complex decision and while, calendar wise, we're as far from the anniversary as we can be, the difference between this list and that of Vietnam, Gettysburg, et al is that for many of us, we lived 9/11 while the others are history, although I acknowledge Vietnam as some editors' lived experience. My editorializing aside, the consensus here appears split, however when you look at the reasoning - you see where the deletes edge out. These responders made the news for their actions, but they were otherwise generally not notable-Mychal Judge etc. aside. Those who were notable have articles. Are the first responders and their work worth noting-yes. And they are, but that does not necessitate a list of these people per policy & guidelines. Star  Mississippi  03:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks

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

This is an emotive subject and I fear this nomination may be controversial but my intent is not to stir emotions. Essentially, this article violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL (a policy) and WP:SALAT (a guideline). It largely consists of long lists of non-notable people. There is little discussion of these individuals in reliable sources, as exemplified by the sources cited in this article which are almost exclusively primary sources (published by the organisations the people belonged to) and tribute sites which have unclear editorial standards. There is coverage of firefighter casualties and one could certainly write an article about firefighter casualties on 9/11 and/or the emergency response to the WTC but extensive lists of casualties like this are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 10:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the people listed don't have articles, so aren't notable. Could perhaps merge parts confirming from where they worked (which firehouse) to another article, but we don't need a list with names for everyone who passed away. This was almost 25 years ago now, if those listed haven't made notability here on wiki by now, they likely won't. A list is fine if it points to other articles; simply listing the names of everyone doesn't add much value to the encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Police,  and New York.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge The statistics belong in Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks, and the names and companies are already in List of victims of the September 11 attacks (A–G) etc. Reywas92Talk 19:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep These arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policies. WP:NOTMEMORIAL says that subjects of articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements, but this is a list article, not an article about the people. The relevant policy is WP:NOTEWORTHY, which says that notability guidelines don't apply to content within lists. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't just a list, it has prose as well; this is an article with a chart. NOTMEMORIAL still applies. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article title starts with "List of", so the consensus is that it's a list, but that doesn't actually matter for this particular argument. WP:NOTEWORTHY applies in either case.  The full text is The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY is a guideline, not a policy but it's not relevant here. That's about deciding what to include in an article or list, not about whether it belongs on Wikipedia. I'm arguing that emergency workers as individuals or a group are not the subject of discussion in reliable sources (WP:SALAT, guideline) but rather a long list of non-notable names (WP:INDIDSCRIMINATE, policy) which serves purely to memorialise them (NOTMEMORIAL, policy). As I said in my nomination, there is scope for a prose article on firefighters at the WTC or the emergency response to 9/11, which would be a more encyclopaedic way of covering the subject. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So barring a few details we don't disagree on the policies/guidelines. I am arguing that the emergency workers as a group are the subject of discussion in reliable sources.  It's also worth noting that the article isn't just list of names; it includes ranks and units for the workers, which is encyclopedic information. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not encyclopaedic for >400 people, almost none of whom are sufficiently notable for their own article and who are only covered because of their involvement (and tragic death) in a single event. I can't find any lists of casualties or emergency responders from any other terrorist attack or natural disaster; I appreciate that 9/11 is on a different scale, as is the incredible bravery of the emergency responders, but that's where NOTMEMORIAL comes in. You haven't provided any sources to support your suggestion that the emergency workers are the subject of discussion, and the sources in the article support my opinion that we should have a prose article about emergency worker casualties rather than a list of names. Of the sources in the article that are reliable and independent (which is maybe five from what I can see), none include a list of names. In fact, the names are almost exclusively unsourced or sourced to primary sources or what look like blogs/hobby sites or the occasional primary source. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 11:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there discussion of emergency workers as a group? I'm looking at Google searches for "9/11" OR "september 11" "rescue workers" OR "first responders" and find what I would consider significant, if not overwhelming, discussion.  Those results are weighted toward articles about long term health effects because Google prefers recent articles to older articles, so a probably better list can be seen by restricting results to the first five years after 9/11 Dan Bloch (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Dan Bloch. Until examing the article in depth, I was not convinced. Do consider a rename, if feasible. gidonb (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I normally just say my piece in an AfD then back off so pardon me for badgering but you don't seem to have addressed any of the policy concerns, nor the concerns about a list that cites no reliable sources for its entries. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that the sources in the article are sufficient for WP:NLIST, which would cancel WP:NOTMEMORIAL as a consideration per the same POLICY. As implied in my opinion, I am still looking if there is an even better solution than keep. Give it some time. gidonb (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As promised, also an alternative to keep. This would be merge with List of emergency and first responder agencies that responded to the September 11 attacks into a new article Emergency and first response to the September 11 attacks, that would contain a list of casualties. It may be beyond the scope of this AfD and something to discuss later if there is interest at all. For this AfD, I will remain at keep. gidonb (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete We don't have a list of every casualty in a war, this would seem to be the same idea. The first responders are amply covered in the various articles on 9/11, I can't see how knowing the names of each and every person adds to the overall discussion. This was 20 years ago and as we move forward in time, simply remembering the event as a whole should suffice. I don't see GNG being met for each and every person, nor for the list as a whole. I don't think we need such granular details at this point in time; if the name on the list doesn't point to an article about the person in wiki, this is simply a memorial. Some are more notable, some are not. I see this as individual soldiers in World War 2; we don't have details for every participant involved, only those that have some sort of notability. These people were simply doing their jobs and one is interchangeable with another in the list at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think there is going to be an almighty fight if we try to start deleting names of the dead (and there are many lists of names just from this event, see ) or we say that new similar lists pages cannot be written as they are not notable. I don't personally think that fight is worth having for the sake of a small number of kB it would save. And if it really is, there must be a better venue for it than a AfD discussion. JMWt (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Let them fit, we aren't here to play favorites. We either stand by our notability guidelines or we don't, this isn't a feel-good exercise. Facts are facts: people responded, people died in the accident, others didn't. We aren't here to judge. NOTMEMORIAL and GNG tell us we only present the facts or discuss what others have said in reliable sources. As tragic as the event was, we're almost a generation removed from it and have to be objective. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an opinion. Personally I can't see it is worth it. JMWt (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think WP:NOTMEMORIAL supports keeping this. I quote it Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.. This isn't an article made by someone trying to make a memorial for their family or friends. The relevant notability requirements here is WP:NLIST which can be satisfied if the subject has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. The sources in the article, I think do. I think people could say that there is a lack of independence, often the employers of the deceased have published the sources, but I think to focus on that to miss the point of independence requirements, there is no PR or promotion occurring when these lists have been published. I think this is a notable topic, actually a very notable topic, that has been dealt with collectively as a list, that is not precluded by WP:NOTMEMORIAL and is supported by WP:NLIST CT55555  (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I think WP:LISTPEOPLE is satisfied, per the exemption. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see the way this is heading, even if I think we're selectively picking our policies and guidelines, but can you explain how point two of LISTPEOPLE (The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources) is satisfied please? The are very few reliable sources cited for the names, and none that I can see that exhaustively list every emergency responder killed on 9/11. There are oodles of sources about the emergency response in general and firefighter casualties as a group, and those subjects would be very encyclopaedic, but there aren't for the names. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the sources and added a more reliable one listing the firefighters, which was the only group without a reliable source. The section Fatalities by fire company has no reliable sources and I think it would be reasonable to remove this. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You did a good job tidying it up but there are still no reliable sources cited for the fatalities. They're all primary sources, or memorial sites like "Officer Down Memorial Page" or "the unofficial landing page of the FDNY". There are still no reliable sources for most of the names, never mind any reliable sources that exhaustively list all emergency worker fatalities. We allow some limited use primary sources in an encyclopaedia but considering 9/11 is probably the most written-about news event in history, we need to ask ourselves if Wikipedia is the place for information that no reliable, secondary publication has covered. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 10:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated it with the reliable source that the "unofficial landing page" was taken from. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like the nominator I understand how emotional this is, especially for editors in the US. But it's a list of non-notable people. We could literally make up names and it would be just as useful to the average reader. For me that's basically the definition of notmemorial: if there isn't anything to link to, how does it matter whether we list Thomas O'Hagan or John Doe#322? In 100 years this will be literally exactly like those war memorials from the Civil War that list every local soldier who died. No one will get any value from it except the soldiers' great-great-grandkids, who can point out the name to their own kids. It's a memorial. Valereee (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to article topics, not to article or list contents. Per WP:NLIST, lists of non-notable people can be notable as a group. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * But these aren't. There is still no reliable source for an exhaustive list. The overwhelming majority of it is based on primary sources. It's natural that the organisations these people belonged to would want to honour them, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Which is why we don't have lists like for any other mass-casualty event. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it's a misinterpretation of that policy to say that names of non-notable individuals need to be included. Are they notable as a group? Absolutely. Their individual names add nothing for readers, any more than the names of all the Rana Plaza collapse victims would add anything for readers. Valereee (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - A disclosure: I didn't live in NYC in 2001, but I do now, and that can't help but affect my !vote. You don't see them in the movies/tv set here, but 9/11 memorials are ubiquitous here. Some of them are big murals or statues and easy to see, while others are little signs, plaques, words painted on a wall, mementos, or portraits of people who died. They're often on/in firehouses and police stations, and often highlighting emergency workers. Most of the people who lived here then, even if they didn't know anyone who died, still get emotional when thinking about the people who died trying to help their fellow New Yorkers that day. The feeling of gratitude towards the FDNY from that day is still there. To be clear, I'm not saying we should keep this because it's still important to NYC. I'm not just going for pathos. Just searching for some of these names in a single Google search returns international coverage of the firefighters who died that day, even though back in 2001 so much of the coverage wasn't online. The page has received almost 12,000 pageviews just last month. Clearly, this organizational scheme is what some people are looking for. Whether we consider it a matter of WP:LISTN or just information that's too large to be included in the main casualties article (i.e. spun out of a larger topic rather than a list with stand-alone notability), my [inescapably biased] !vote is to keep. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an excellent argument for an article on the emergency response, or an article about the role of the FDNY that day, or even a prose article about emergency worker casualties. It absolutely merits coverage in some form. I would be happy to help you write such an article. *I* get emotional thinking about the heroism of the firefighters; I've only visited NYC once, around a decade ago, and the site of the twin towers (then just a building site) was the first thing I wanted to see. But Wikipedia covers that which is covered in reliable sources, not that which its editors thinks is important or should be covered, and as far as I can see there are no reliable sources that cover the subject by giving an exhaustive list of names. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't list all names on the Viet Nam memorial, do we? Or everybody who was killed at Gettysburg, or in the recent Turkey/Syria earthquake. We don't list all those murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia or during the Rwandan genocide. All horrible events. All people that deserve memorials. But not here... --Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Valereee, and Randykitty. If there are no sources covering this, there shouldn't be an article. --bonadea contributions talk 20:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you meant by "no sources covering this", but it's not true. I just removed the one unsourced section, so it's all sourced now. , if you're saying that there should be a single source containing all the names, this isn't a Wikipedia requirement.  Consider for example List of people who have declined a British honour. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not all sourced (even discounting the section you removed, which was restored by an IP user with no explanation or comment). Under "New York Fire Department", there is a list of names by company, rank, name, and age (if available) sourced to this and this.  The first one is primary, the second one secondary; the list of names in the list article appears to be a synthesis of both sources (and neither one mentions any ages, so it's anyone's guess where that info comes from). Original research + unsourced, and non-notable individuals.  A little further down, under "Private emergency medical services", is a list of names with comments / descriptions, some but not all of which is found in the source – and the source does not support almost any of the introductory text. The "Port Authority Police Department" source (which is primary) mentions no ages. The "New York City Police Department" is almost entirely sourced to one of a couple of primary sources. Etc. A crucial difference between this list article and List of people who have declined a British honour is that the latter list consists overwhelmingly of notable individuals and this one doesn't – and the British honours list article does in fact specify which secondary sources it is based on. You're right that there doesn't necessarily have to be one single list with all names, but we really do need the sources to be secondary. --bonadea contributions talk 12:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dan, there doesn't necessarily need to be one source that gives an exhaustive list (though it says something that there are none), but WP:LISTPEOPLE requires that "the person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources" and the vast majority of the entries are sourced only to primary sources. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Bonadea, I've removed that section again and added a source for people's ages. The fire department section is now completely sourced.  The list of names should be identical in the two sources, but in any case combining two lists is not synthesis in the Wikipedia sense, which is explicitly to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source".
 * I've removed the unsourced introductory text from "Private emergency medical services". I've added a source (same source as for FDNY) for the "Port Authority Police Department" victims' ages.
 * HJ Mitchell, as of the addition of the New York Times source for the FDNY, the vast majority of the names are sourced to reliable secondary sources.
 * I agree that some of the sources in the article could be better, but the remedy for this is ; it isn't a reason to delete the article. At the end of the day, we're back where we started.  The issue is whether or not this list of people (or their deaths) is notable as a group, which I still think it is. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * As it stands, this should be deleted, but the driving problem is that the alphabetic breakout of the overall list is a bad idea. It makes much more sense to break the list out by the "where" column, which would make a much more manageable set of lists. And it that case it would make sense to divide up the "WTC" entries by emergency and others. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.