Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 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 Keep. Bduke (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani during the September 11, 2001 attacks

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is not needed; All it does is detail Rudy Giuliani's events before, during, and after the 9/11 attacks. If we have a page for Rudy, we might as well have a page for every major public figure. (i.e. Dick Cheney during the September 11, 2001 attacks)  Noah¢s   ( Talk )  00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Noahcs's point. Although the article has some fine facts in it, they would do just as good in different sections of different articles. (such as Rudy Giuliani or Ground Zero, ect.]Tavix (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename Rudy Giuliani and the September 11, 2001 attacks. After reviewing the Giuliani article this seems to me like any other breakout section, and certainly the topic is notable as an independent entity with plenty of info that would overwhelm the parent article (in fact the Giuliani article is probably too long as it stands now).  I don't see how the possibility that this could lead to more articles on similar lines should be a factor in this decision.  They should and will be judged on their own if created. Joshdboz (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is so much information on this that it had to be split from the original Rudy Giuliani article. All of this information is sourced, relevant and important. What it comes down to is organization, none of this information should be deleted and merging it would make an already large article, larger. There is no valid reason for deletion. I ask the nominator to save us time and please withdraw this nomination.-- S    TX   01:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Abstain -Roofus (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very simple arithmetic proves the case: Giuliani has based much of his presidential campaign on references to his connection to 9/11 PLUS: He is one of the major candidates (usually leading in the polls in 2007). EQUALS: A subject very, very obviously worth a well-sourced, neutral Wikipedia article. Noroton (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Jo n a  t h an   02:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This article cannot be merged with Rudy Giuliani without making that article too large. Giuliani's response to 9/11 is far from being his only claim to fame, yet it is his greatest moment of glory. That part of his biography needs to be treated in a separate article, if only because of limitations on article length. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 03:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This was a WP:Summary-style breakout from the Rudy Giuliani article, for length reasons.  The nom's comparison to Dick Cheney is ill-founded, as Giuliani had responsibility  for the city's preparedness beforehand, response during, and recovery after the attacks; Cheney and other political figures did not.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but purely on the grounds that this is a breakout article from Rudy Guiliani, and merging the content back would make that article too large. Lankiveil (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep &mdash; he was the mayor of New York during the 9/11 attacks, an event which defined his remaining term as mayor, and his political future. He has based his 2008 Presidential run on this.  His relationship to the event is absolutely encyclopedic. --Haemo (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable subject too detailed to be thoroughly discussed in either the Giuliani or 9/11 articles. Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Mr. 9/11 has based so much of his campaign on this that it is indeed notable as a subject. Fosnez (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A fine, fine article (even if somewhat on a gruesome subject). This is a classic case where less is more, and summary style & separate main article on a facet of the subject does wikipedia proud. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, granting undue weight to a subject because it was recent (and hence covered heavily on the Internets), and it's too WP:SYNny for my liking. We should be covering others who consider the subject as a whole, rather than collating lots of different events and putting an article title on it. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While the title may sound like an original synthesis, this article seems to be an objective and necessary split from the main article on Guiliani for length reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, given his large role in the aftermath of the attacks, a perfectly suitable subarticle. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Per WP:OR and that its not necessary at all. Merge pertinent information with Rudy Giuliani. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What O.R.? Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above with no prejudice to putting this back up after (a) he loses the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary or (b) he is elected President of the United States. In all fairness, this has been up since June '07, but it does look like campaign material more than anything.  Mandsford (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as historically significant event, and the main article is too long. I added a few minor tags and cleaned it up a bit. It seems very well-balanced and sourced well enough for POV purposes. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Too specific, too much overlap. There's a good reason why we don't have such articles (i.e. Richard Daley during the 1968 riots) and I would hate to see this one to set any sort of precedent for the endless fracturing of major topics. This isn't a 9/11 wiki. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:55, 31 December 2007 (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.