Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Welty


 * 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. The main argument appears to be: is the coverage in Rolling Stone sufficient to meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The consensus would seem to be that it was not. Wikipedia does not exist to act as a memorial to victims/heroes - that is another theme here, and I feel that those arguing for deletion have made their opinions with sufficient strength to make this a case for deletion, with regret - as I recognise that all the FDNY victims of 9/11 are all heroic  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Welty

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable WP:ORPHAN 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) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This New York fireman had been profiled in Rolling Stone magazine before 9/11/2001, as well as after his death. He is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment—The subject was not "profiled in a Rolling Stone article"; he was merely was featured in a composition article about "The American Dream". Claiming that the issue was "widely read" simply because it appeared in the 30th Anniversary Issue along with a couple Seinfeld-related articles is not criteria that proves notability. The article contains no references whatsoever about a perceived "controversy" about his comments related to nepotism and racism, which also does not address the notability concerns presented.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Regretfully, Delete WP:MEMORIAL is a harsh, but necessary policy, requiring us to disregard to rely on emotion when it comes to whether someone deserves a Wikipedia article. This article clearly is a memorial to Mr. Welty, who, like most of the people who died on 9/11, hasn't proven to meet our standard of notability.  None of the persons who were featured in the Rolling Stone article would have become notable as a result; few of the 343 brave men in FDNY qualify for their own individual page, simply because we have to avoid becoming a memorial.  Mandsford 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:MEMORIAL. Rolling Stone bit sounds nice at first, but as noted above, it was a blurb as part of a larger story. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep His part in the first Rolling Stone's article seems significant. The article isn't available online, so unless someone owns a copy of that, we don't know how much he contributed to it, with quotes and information.  The people of New York city thought he notable enough to name a street after.  I'm sure he was given some sort of award or medal for his final actions.  Not just known and notable for one event, but two.   D r e a m Focus  02:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's weak, even by the usual standards. You don't know what's in the RS article, so you err on the side of "well, it might be significant" ?  The people of New York don't determine notability; simply having a street named because one died in a tragedy is not an automatic qualifier for an article. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep or Merge into a list of something like Victims of the September 11 attacks.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A simple list of victims, the vast majority of whom would not meet the notability requirements, would be an even worse violation of "not a memorial". That option isn't on the table. Tarc (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:MEMORIAL is not intended to prohibit articles on subjects who otherwise meet the GNG, even if the circumstances surrounding the death may generate a substantial share of the relevant coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be right. His name still keeps coming up in the news, in large part because his mother, Adele Welty, has become an activist in memory of her son, so I can't deny that he still comes up in coverage.  On the other hand, one could argue that his mother is more notable than he has been.  In addition, WP:PEOPLE does rely on the opinions of the editors about whether the person is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", which are leaning toward keep at the moment.  Not to be callous, but appearing in a magazine would not be notable by itself, and dying on 9/11 would not be notable by itself; and the two together are an item of trivia as "the guy who was in Rolling Stone and then died on 9/11", which doesn't make him any more courageous or more notable than the other 342 firefighters killed that day.  I compare it to this brave U.S. Marine, USMC Corporal Rick Crudale, who got his picture on the cover of TIME Magazine and then got killed a few weeks later  along with 240 others in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.  I'd say that he's not notable enough for his own article either, but I'll concede that you have a point on Welty continuing to meet WP:GNG. Mandsford 17:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, standard Wikipedia is not a memorial case. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 22 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.