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 no consensus to delete. Some opinions labeled "delete" in fact advocate "merge" (and hence "keep" for AfD purposes), while others have no serious rationale ("pathetic trash"). Yet more note that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, although it is unclear how that policy applies to an article that mentions no names. On the whole, a clear consensus to delete does not exist. Whether this content should be merged is an editorial matter. Sandstein 06:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-American casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Non-American casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Although some of this is considered notable, it might not be considered notable enough to appear in a encyclopedia. If it is not deleted, at the very least, it should be merged into the main 9/11 page. Davnel03 18:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete First, I'm surprised no one's gotten upset about the use of the word "American" here (see e.g. Talk:American and Talk:American (word)). Secondly, whatever happened to "We Are All Americans"? Thirdly, these people don't have names? In any case, someone's done a lot of research to put these numbers together so I don't think it should be deleted, but unless this can be expanded to be a real article (cf. List of tornado-related deaths at schools) it should be merged into another article. The only question is where? Note that Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks redirects to September 11, 2001 attacks#Fatalities. Maybe that section could be broken out into a real article and merged with this? Ewlyahoocom 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This was voted on before in 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-American casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks (the capitalization has changed). Ewlyahoocom 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and put into a table in another article - it doesn't need its own. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 9/11 article, and then Delete I don't think anyone did a lot of research to put these numbers together. There are lots of 9/11 articles that *:mention where the victims came from. "Argentina 4, Australia 11, Bangladesh 6..." Just some cold statistics here. I remember that one of the five guys contained in "Peru - 5" was a kitchen worker who had his 19th birthday on September 11, 2001. And what is he now? He's a "Peru 5". A similar article called "List of American casualties by state" would be just as pointless (Alabama-17, Alaska-3, etc.)... Mandsford 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that the "9/11 article" (I assume you mean September 11, 2001 attacks?) is already really, really long (112 kilobytes). Ewlyahoocom 20:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe, but it's just a table, and would be rather informative in there. We can always split that one a bit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per above, it is only just numbers which can be easily added, maybe arrenged the organisation of that new section so it would not increase significantly more the length of the article.--JForget 23:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per JForget. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the WP is not for lists of information or for memorials. Tarc 13:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wow a list of numbers... gimme a break... this is pathetic trash.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - useful list. For once, we actually have a list that's useful, encyclopedic, and presents pertinent information. At the risk of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS links being thrown at me, I can't imagine for the life of me how a list of national casualties in one of the most historic events in modern history can't be encyclopedic, while List of Naruto characters that carry a sword... blah blah blah is considered notable. If necessary, change it to Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and add Americans to the top. The Evil Spartan 01:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ain't that interesting, it's a blue link... The Evil Spartan 01:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Proving my point, I didn't have to even search for this one. Found it on vandal patrol: List of Naruto story arcs. Are we saying as a community this is more encyclopedic than the nationality of the 9-11 victims? The Evil Spartan 01:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" can and should be thrown at you. If you object to the Naruto thing then go file an AfD. It has no bearing as to whether or not this page should be kept or deleted. Tarc 02:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it should not, if I'm pointing out that if we have any lists at all, this is a proper one. I could just as easily point to IDONTLIKEIT for other people. As for your argument, WP might not be a list of information, but it has some information, and the onus is on your to prove that this list is not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. The Evil Spartan 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, no, there is no "onus" on the keep or the merge or the delete people here. Each is equally obligated to present their arguments, based on established Wiki policy and guidelines. So far, you have cited "it is useful" and "other lists which I think are trivial also exist" as reasons to keep, both of which are generally cited as flawed/faulty reasonings in an AfD discussion. Tarc 14:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Strong Keep- this list is useful and important, the political implications are the only thing I can see driving this call for deletion, rather than "trash". This is worthy of a page of its own, and I support it.JJJ999 13:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We are an encyclopedia, not a memorial, or list of non notable memorials. Burntsauce 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as encyclopedias are repositories of information and this attack is historically significance; thus, information about it is something that researchers will look into. Casualty statistics and lists are handy for researchers. Sinceerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as a table into September 11, 2001 attacks. This information isn't purely trivial (this data, for instance, could help illustrate the motivations for varied reactions and military support from other countries after the 9/11 attacks), yet it doesn't warrant it's own article (this list is no more important than any host of other lists). SkerHawx 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no merge. I'm with Alkivar here. This article is really just a list, and not a particulary necessary list. There isn't any use for this information in any of the other 9/11 articles. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not a memorial. Dannycali 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.