Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. Ganci, Jr.


 * 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   keep. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter J. Ganci, Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable unreferenced stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He was the highest ranking uniformed officer in the New York Fire Department, and is therefore notable, independent of the events of 9/11/2001. He was the senior uniformed officer among several hundred killed in the line of duty that day, and that makes him notable as well. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment—Being the highest-ranking officer in a city's fire/police department is not criteria that proves notability. Being the highest-ranking executive of a company among other victims who died in the attack does not make that person notable, and that same argument applies to the highest-ranking uniformed officer. As the article states, "he was among the 343 New York City firefighters and paramedics who were killed...", and Ganci, Jr. is no more notable than the other 342 in that group who died and don't have articles here.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Nominator chose not to provide a link to the afd of February 2nd, 2011 -- Articles for deletion/Edelmiro Abad. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The Nominator of the afd of ten days ago chose not to follow the recommendations of our deletion policies, and inform the contributors who started those articles that the articles had been nominated for deletion. Afd are supposed to be the venue of genuine discussions, where there is a possibility of a genuine exchange of views. For a genuine discussion to take place I suggest it is essential the nominator comply with the deletion policies, so that those likely to disagree with the arguments for deletion have a chance to voice their counter-arguments. In those case where the individuals who start articles have made a good faith mistake, I suggest they are entitled to an opportunity to read the arguments for why articles like the one they started don't belong, so they can learn from their mistakes.  The failure of nominators to comply with the recommendations of the deletion policy wastes everyone's time. In this particular cases I suggest the afd of 2011-02-02 would have close differently than "relist separately" if the nominator had complied with the deletion policies, and article creators had participated in that discussion and offered their counter arguments then.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment—The creator of this article was notified that it was nominated for deletion at 12:47, 13 February 2011. Please review all facts before accusing someone of acting in bad faith. The failure to do this "wastes everyone's time."  Sottolacqua  (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has accused you of bad faith. I will remind you that you initiated an omnibus afd on 2011-02-02, and added afd tags to nine articles,, , , , , , , , , but you only left a heads-up on one contributor's talk page -- .  Yes, when you initiated separate afd on 2011-02-13 you left separate notes.  But I think it is unfortunate that you neglected to leave eight other notes on 2011-02-02, when you first nominated these articles.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * With regard to WP:NOTMEMORIAL -- when a db-person was placed on Orio Palmer, one of the other articles included in the afd of 2011-02-02, and one of those relisted separately on 2011-02-13, I wrote:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * The wikipedia is not a memorial. We don't currently cover the bulk of 9-11 victims, or surviving loved ones of 9-11 victims in individual articles. At one time some of these individuals were covered, and, after discussion, that coverage was trimmed, because the wikipedia is not a memorial. The individuals whose articles were excised, or merged, were otherwise unexcetional people, who had been living otherwise unexceptional lives, who weren't covered in WP:RS in anything other than obituaries, or articles about them were basically memorials.
 * The wikipedia is not a memorial. We don't currently cover the bulk of 9-11 victims, or surviving loved ones of 9-11 victims in individual articles. At one time some of these individuals were covered, and, after discussion, that coverage was trimmed, because the wikipedia is not a memorial. The individuals whose articles were excised, or merged, were otherwise unexcetional people, who had been living otherwise unexceptional lives, who weren't covered in WP:RS in anything other than obituaries, or articles about them were basically memorials.


 * I agree we shouldn't carry articles about victims or survivors of 9-11 or any other disaster, that are basically memorials. But victims or survivors whose stories are exceptional, and for whom there are WP:RS documenting how they are exceptional, should continue to be covered.


 * }
 * No one is disputing that something like 99 percent of the 9-11 victims, 9-11 survivors, and their surviving relatives will not have WP:RS to support a separate article. But I believe that almost all reasonable people are prepared to accept that one percent of those victims and survivors, or a fraction of one percent of those victims and survivors will have sufficient WP:RS to support a separate article.  If it is our nominator's position that no victim or survivor of 9-11 merits a separate article, even if there are lots of references to support that article then I request they explicitly say so.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Ganzi would have met our notability requirements on 2001-09-10 -- the day before his death, due the other events in his life, as this google search confirms. Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep particularly in light of Geo Swan's findings of references to him all the way up to September 10, 2001, mainly because Chief of Department of the largest fire department in the United States (and second largest in the world) is important. As I noted in the Edelmiro Abad debate, I didn't find much about him after 9/11 to set him apart from the other 342 firefighters who died that day, although death is the great equalizer.  Mandsford 01:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Geo Swan. The coverage appears to support some pre 9/11 notability. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These 3 keeps are utterly ridiculous, these pre-9/11 google-hits are for routine news coverage of local fires and such, e.g. "Chief of Department Peter Ganci said the lack of a battery for the smoke detector was likely to blame for the deaths of the three..." or "It's a lesson we keep learning over and over and over," said Fire Chief Peter Ganci..., as well as brief blurbs about taking the job, and being quoted in a story for firefighters not responding promptly. It is expected for a representative of the fire dep't to talk about these things. Find some pre-9/11 reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of them man himself, otherwise these 3 keep calls above are without merit. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL, non-notable prior to 9/11. Being a high-ranking firefighter is not in itself notable, sorry. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron. Snotty Wong   squeal 18:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Geo Swan. He got news coverage before 9/11.  The news media interviewed him about fires, and published quotes of what he said.  The article says that they named a post office after him, and a book was written about him and got reviews making it notable by Wikipedia standards.  Having a notable book written about you, adds to your notability.   D r e a m Focus  01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Geo Swan's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable before events of 9/11 as head of the NYFD, and notable for his activities that day, too. A well documented article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By "well documented" I mean that the article has six inline citations which support the text, including two books on this firefighter. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment—This is hardly a well-documented article. It contains at best blurbs of trivia (career prior to FDNY, info about his sons and an unofficial renaming of an AFB) and minimal encyclopedic information.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I found no difficulty in adding yet another good source. The topic is obviously notable and it is our editing policy to keep such material rather than deleting it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2011 (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.