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. Mailer Diablo 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of completely not-notable people, about as interesting/useful/notable as a list of Richard Nixon's meals in office. Names/details on professons of random people is just a collection of tangental information. Perhaps transwiki to the memorial wiki, but delete here. See WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Improv 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no offense intended to anyone on the list, but as individuals they're not notable and they might not want their names re-published this way anyway. Opabinia regalis 21:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not just a list of non-notable people, but also contains descriptions of how they survived, which IMHO is notable information. -- NORTH ^talk 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How they survived? What do you mean? What's notable about it? They're ordinary people in an unfortunate system -- anything noteworthy is covered in other WTC attack articles. --Improv 00:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --S0uj1r0 23:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to sep11:. Kotepho 00:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge some of the information per Improv's comment below.Weak keep Lists of casualties have been deleted already, 9/11 casualties, 7-7 London casualties, but this isn't merely a list. True enough that these semi-compelling stories would be better in Reader's Digest, but the information itself contributes to a broader understanding of the 9/11 attacks: how people managed to survive inside collapsing buildings, like NORTH says. It's not really a memorial, so I disfavor transwiki, though that would be better than deletion.--Chaser T 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be amenable to moving the "how survived" information into some other article? The current title (and content) is memorial-ish. --Improv 04:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, definitely. Good suggestion. Of the articles in the template, Collapse of the World Trade Center seems like the most logical choice, but I don't know if this partial merge idea will find enough support.--Chaser T 04:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure noone will object to scooting any non-memorial content into other more appropriate articles. --Improv 06:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Improv. Some of this info could be kept, but I agree with Improv's earlier post, most of the noteworthy info on 9/11/01 is already covered in other articles. -- H·G (^words/_works) 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lots of information in this article. I hardly se it merged into other 9/11 articles as most are already very long, but if it is it should be merged with Collapse of the World Trade CenterEyesAllMine 08:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until merged. There seems to be some good information in this article. One approach might be to move the information bit by bit into other articles, i.e., to delete it one fact at a time. As it gets shorter, it will be easier to decide what the loss would be in deleting it. I think the Collapse of the World Trade Center article, for example, could have a section on the evacuations. A few of these anecdotes, which include information about the elevators and stairwells, might fit in there. A section on the fire-fighting might also belong there. (These issues were definitely seen as collapse-related by the government investigations.)--Thomas Basboll 09:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admins routinely handle mergers and since this will be redirected, regular editors of these articles can retrieve whatever information they want from prior versons of the page. Keeping it until the merger is complete doesn't make sense in the context of typical process after AfDs.--Chaser T 09:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking more of the readers than the editors. Right now, the article includes information not available on the pages I'm working on. My suggestion was to keep this article until I have plundered it for my own purposes on, say, the collapse article. That is, not just reproduced the information there but actually removed it from here. I think the key objection to this way of proceeding would come from those who want a separate article on the survivors. I don't have a well-formed opinion on that.--Thomas Basboll 10:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure our policy is clear on that, as outlined above. --Improv 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to sep11, If info is desired to be merged elsewhere, it can be obtained from there.--Mmx1 12:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per Mmx1 above Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to sep11 per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not know whether my vote counts, nor how to vote; but, if saying so is acceptable: I do tend to prefer any such history be retained. Thank You. Hopiakuta 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the memorial wiki be an ok place to retain it with you? --Improv 00:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The accounts of survivors are important and notable information that deserve to be in Wikipedia and not just a memorial wiki. I think a merge would only clutter other articles. The best course of action would be to flesh this article out and wikify it.--Bkwillwm 04:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete TransWiki The event may be notable, but the people involved are not. Can you imagine the mess if every terrorist incident included a list of people near the incident and how they survived? How do you even begin verifying they were in the building, near the building, got out the way they said etc. Delete, its not even something to be merged, the people who died or didnt die are just people, they themselves are not notable. Note Changed vote to transwiki, apparently its best served there then in a general encyclopedia. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Wikipedia has a list of Titanic survivors, who are not typically well known throughout the world, however they still have an article. These people deserve a mention as much as any other people who have survived such horrific events !!!! (Neostinker 23:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • That deserve marks this as an intent to be a memorial, which is explicitly against policy. I urge whoever closes this to weigh arguments, especially as how they bear on existing policy. --Improv 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to sep11 - not encyclopaedic but fits nicely there. BlueValour 19:37, 29 July 2006 (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.