Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Sep 11 victims

Note from VV: This discussion seems to be at an impasse, condemned to never reaching a conclusion. It does seem the deletion may have been premature, and many of these may warrant undeletion or archiving at sep11, but due to an unfortunately-timed database clean-up undeletion in the usual manner is not possible. So, given the impasse, this giant section of VfU I think should be a bit more out of the way until someone, sometime gets around to taking definitive action, should that ever occur. Until then, my semi-definitive action, as the one who started this discussion, is to move it off the main VfU page. Cheers! -- VV 02:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shawn Edward Bowman, Jr., Pamela Boyce, Swede Joseph Chevalier, Judith Berquis Diaz-Sierra, Anthony Edward Gallagher, Ralph Gerhardt, Gricelda E. James, Hweidar Jian, Zoe Johnson, Joseph John Keller, John R. Keohane, Eugen Gabriel Lazar, Joseph Lovero, Waleska Martinez, Ann Marie McHugh, Joseph Mistrulli, Kristen Montanaro, Bernard Pietronico, Kevin Michael Williams, Wa Xiang, Daniel Thomas Suhr, Anthony Starita.

I don't feel the mass deletion of these was proper. My accounting of the votes is as follows:

Votes to delete all: Delirium, Bmills, DJ Clayworth, Daniel Quinlan, Jtdirl, User:Maximus Rex, Jiang, Fuzheado, Bryan Derksen, TakuyaMurata, Wshun, At18, Kosebamse (13).

Votes for something other than deleting all (keep, or consider individually, or keep non-tribute, or keep those with information, etc.): The Cunctator, Cimon avaro, JamesDay, VeryVerily, Oliver Pereira, Lirath Q. Pynnor (6). [Note: Lir added his vote here, it was not at the original vfd discussion ]

Unclear entries: Gareth Owen (comment seems to favor deletion), Tlotoxl (says keep if merited, but implies (?) none listed are merited), Rossami (says delete unless..., suggesting entry in second list, but seems to think "adding back" is an easy option).

I should note Cimon avaro carried out the deletion, so perhaps his vote could be reconsidered, although maybe he just counted differently.

Anyway, I don't think this constitutes a consensus. For one, there were a lot of keep votes. Furthermore, many of the reasons given for deletion were adequately addressed (such as The Cunctator to DJ Clayworth). Also, this may not be 75%, either, although it's teetering around it.

As for me, I favor giving individual consideration, and erring on the side of keeping. -- VV 19:25, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. There are over 3,000 Sept11 th victims - and we have a special memorial wiki to keep them in. Secretlondon 19:28, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * The issue is that some of the entries were encyclopedic. The victims were notable for some reason, and the entry provided relevant information.  In cases such as Todd Beamer and Barbara Olson this is clearcut; in others not so.  But no one is suggesting having all 3,000 entered.  As for the sep11 wiki, it is for tribute pages and memorials, and entries of that nature should be moved there, but those which are encyclopedia entries should stay on Wikipedia. -- VV 19:47, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * are you saying that some of them would get an entry if they were still alive? If that is the case then yes they alone should stay. But they must be NPOV, not sentimental victim entries. Secretlondon 19:51, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * well the first entries for Anthony Starita are wikipedia. He was a bond trader at Cantor Fitzgerald ie totally non-notable. Do I need to do any more?Secretlondon 19:54, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * Well my objection to the deletion is mostly a procedural one, for the reasons noted above; I don't think the question of which entries merited preservation was considered to the extent requested by some voters. Since I cannot read the entries (they were deleted), I can't evaluate them myself.  Yes, some might have been notable were they still alive (as Barbara Olson), some might be close calls knocked over the threshold of meriting entries by their 9/11 deaths (as perhaps Keith A. Glascoe?), and some deserve mention because of the massacre (as Mark Bingham). -- VV 20:15, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Well Keith A. Glascoe was a fireman. So only notable for 11th Sept. The other two you mentioned have already got articles. Secretlondon 20:20, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've understood me at all. I was delineating categories of victims using examples of people I do know about (including, of course, those with articles).  I do not know what was in the deleted articles, as I said, and am arguing they were deleted improperly.  As for Keith Glascoe, he had a modest acting career. -- VV 20:46, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. These articles are not encyclopedic in any way. And I've checked 5 of the above links to look whether these articles are NPOV. None of these 5 has a "undelete" button, did these ever exist? -- JeLuF 19:40, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Maximus Rex 23:45, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Undelete and relist on Vfd as separate cases, as should have been done originally. I've looked at VV's statistics, and it doesn't seem at all clear to me that there was a consensus to delete the pages en masse. That doubt has been cast on the process by which the articles were deleted is reason enough to reopen the case. (See my note on the talk page for further discussion.) -- Oliver P. 03:08, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. FearÉIREANN 04:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Undelete.. and may the memorial RIP. BL 04:07, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. All of them. Listing these on VfD separately is a waste of time. If you believe that one or two of these is encyclopedic, please propose those specifically rather than proposing the whole lot which is also a waste of time. I looked at all of them and none seemed encyclopedic. Daniel Quinlan 13:18, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * That is simply not the way things should work on Wikipedia. "Encyclopedic" is a word which we clearly disagree on its meaning in this case, and "not encyclopedic" is not a reason for deletion, as it doesn't have any specific meaning. It's as flabby as the definition of "obscenity" being "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." --The Cunctator 01:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I can't read them and so cannot judge if one or two is encyclopedic. I am appealing only to the procedural issues, since that is the only information I have.  My count of the votes is that blanket deletion was not called for. -- VV 07:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I tried to undelete the above but got the following error. This is the same error you get if you try to undelete a page that never existed. I have submitted it to sourceforge. Angela. 03:35, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A database query syntax error has occurred. This could be because of an illegal search query (see Searching Wikipedia), or it may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

INSERT INTO cur (cur_namespace,cur_title,cur_text,cur_comment,cur_user,cur_user_text,cur_timestamp,inverse_timestamp,cur_minor_edit,cur_random,cur_touched)SELECT ar_namespace,ar_title,ar_text,ar_comment,ar_user,ar_user_text,ar_timestamp,99999999999999-ar_timestamp,ar_minor_edit,RAND,'20031206033001' FROM archive WHERE ar_namespace=0 AND ar_title='Pamela_Boyce' AND ar_timestamp=

from within function "doUndeleteArticle". MySQL returned error "1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax. Check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1".
 * Well, I don't know much about how undeletion is carried out by admins, or how the guts of Wikipedia are implemented, but this is a syntax error, not a failed join. The problem seems to be the "ar_timestamp=", which should be "ar_timestamp= '' " or "...=NULL" or some such.  Of course, if this is done by a script this error could come about because there was no entry to fill in the values from.  As for the articles, they presumably existed, having been listed on VfD, although it's possible Delirium mistyped one or more of the names (?).  Anyway, I agree with those who state that this is not the place to discuss whether the pages deserve deletion per se, but rather whether procedure was followed to good effect. -- VV 04:49, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

According to Brion, "if they're really needed they can be reimported from the old trash bin." Angela. 04:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Someone should ask Cimon Avaro about his judgement - he may recall. VeryVerily - why not look at the sep11: versions if you are interested in the text? Martin 19:16, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I looked through every name on the sep11 Wiki, and found about half aren't there at all. This itself is troubling since they should have at least been moved there before being deleted here.  Anyway, of those which are there, most I agree are unencyclopedic.  Two I'm not sure about are Ralph Gerhardt (there is a fund in his name) and Zoe Johnson (possibly apocryphal, might be interesting for that reason).  As for those totally unrepresented, who knows? -- VV 22:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I also did that check. The following from this VfD batch do not have any entries at the 9-11 Wiki: Judith Berquis Diaz-Sierra Gricelda E. James Hweidar Jian Joseph John Keller John R. Keohane Eugen Gabriel Lazar Joseph Lovero Ann Marie McHugh Joseph Mistrulli Kristen Montanaro Daniel Thomas Suhr. These are on the tributes to individuals list there, but without articles. Was there anything about them here prior to the delete? Jamesday 08:30, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * James, those were empty articles as far as I can tell. Daniel Quinlan 19:41, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * Also Waleska Martinez. As it is clear that there was not consensus to delete these entries, I ask someone to undelete them. If noone does it soon, I'll do it. --The Cunctator 03:44, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. FearÉIREANN 04:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * There were no votes to keep this on VfD. How on earth is that lacking consensus? Angela. 04:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Are you giving any thought to what you propose for undeletion? Daniel Quinlan 13:18, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep deted. Secretlondon 17:22, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * And Christoffer Carstanjen and Talk:Christoffer Carstanjen. --The Cunctator 03:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. FearÉIREANN 04:12, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * There were 6 votes to 1 on this which perfectly meets the rough consensus requirement. Angela. 04:05, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * That is simply not a large enough sample of the Wikipedia population to be in any way a valid representation of the community consensus. --The Cunctator 01:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I decided on this as my first "real" delete because there was no question on the consensus. I moved the entire article text, minus VFD boilerplate, to sep11.  Anyone who wants to see or edit it can go there.  How exactly is this a problem?  -- Pakaran 04:15, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * By moving the text, you killed its edit history, which is a significant part of the entry's interest. Furthermore, sep11 is for tributes to people, not for biographical, non-opinionated (i.e. encyclopedic) information about people. --The Cunctator 01:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * And keep deleted. Daniel Quinlan 13:18, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Secretlondon 17:22, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

On the procedural issue, I recall that a number of sep11 articles were listed in dribs and drabs over a long-ish time period, so sysops may have been inferring support for deletion (or keeping) from support on similar articles (which they are entitled to do: the judgement over rough consensus is personal to each sysop). Martin 19:16, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I feel we should be sure this was the right call. The fact is, there were a number of votes to keep. -- VV 22:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd nominate W. Thomas Smith, Jr.. The page was on VfD, but I believe he passes the "5000 audience" test, and thus should be kept. Meelar 17:03, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted unless it can be verified they did something more notable than merely dying. Davodd 08:11, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted - one of the many revotes on a settled issue - Texture 04:38, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)