Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11 Attack Casualties


 * 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 per WP:NOT and precedent (or rather the consensus that those demand deletion). There are appropriate places for this but Wikipedia is not one of them. Eluchil404 05:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

September 11 Attack Casualties

 * – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a memorial. shoy 19:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unfortunately, this does fall into the category WP:NOT. - Rjd0060 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. I'd say speedy per WP:SNOW if I could find the precedent AFDs to link to (I know there are several). Darksun 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, memorial page previously rejected by consensus. See 9/11 victims and its Talk page for more information. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment DRV discussion about undeleting the articles here, and a 2006 AFD for Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 11 victims (both sparked by lists of victims for the London bombings). --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Took some digging, but I finally found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks: Pentagon (though not the VFD for Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks: City of New York, oddly; both were transwikied to the sep11 memorial wiki). We also had Articles for deletion/Persons missing after the September 11, 2001 attacks and a few others. An instructive counterexample is Articles for deletion/Non-American casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Where does WP:NOT stop being about misc. material in memorial, to actually being factual, certifiable, and useful? There were issues like this during the I-35W Mississippi River bridge, and I simply cannot accept the catch all rebuttal that any list in effect creates a memorial purely for emotional reasons, and does not actually forward articles. Too often WP:NOT is brandished, and limits the knowledge base itself. While I agree that this particular list is in need of help, I do not think this AfD is appropriate. Zidel333 00:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article does nothing but list the victims of the attacks. That information might be useful in an article such as September 11, 2001 attacks, but not as a stand-alone article. Either Merge the information into a suitable article, or simply delete per WP:NOT. -- Kesh 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Kesh. The content is useful, but the article is unsourced and a POV fork. Bearian 03:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this should be speedied under CSD G4 given Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_Flight_11_victims. Darksun 07:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't really deleted by consensus, it was speedied at the request of the author. shoy  12:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It looked like a pretty clear consenus before it was speedied though. However, if letting this AfD run it's course will help to build a more complete consenus then keep it running for the full 7 days. Darksun 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unhelpful list and Wikipedia is not memorial. Carlosguitar 18:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, or weak keep This list seems like something some researcher might find useful.  Tiptopper 20:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong (very close to the speedy) Delete It only shows the victims from Flight 11 only consisting of a list of nn individuals and also WP is not a memorial.-- JForget 23:25, 30 September 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.