Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Peak

Stacey Peak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable 9/11 victim's memorial page. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Fails WP:BLP1E. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (as article creator) per WP:REDIRECT. While the article probably fails BLP1E, which I take full responsibility for, a redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (O–Z) is better than nothing, where information on the subject still does exist. SirMemeGod  12:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Very much a non-notable individual, routine office work. Wiki is not a memorial and this person isn't more or less notable than the hundreds of others that passed away that day. There is no coverage about this person to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I have no problem keeping this. As for the oft-quoted policy of Wikipedia not being a memorial ... we sure seem to bend the other direction at times: List of Texian survivors of the Battle of the Alamo and List of Alamo defenders, etc. etc. Most of the people on those lists are only notable for that one battle. Wikipedia is often a memorial of one subject matter or another. — Maile (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand your argument. Is your argument that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here? We can point to lots of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it doesn't override policy. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*::It wasn't an argument - I'm OK keeping this as is, per Sir MemeGod above. No opinion of whether or not to redirect it. The rest of my comment was just a general passing comment that Wikipedia sometimes varies in how things are applied, etc. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am confused here. SirMemeGod wants to redirect the article and admits it fails BLP1E. There is no "Keep per Sir Memegod" because the argument is one that argues for redirecting. Could you clarify your position a bit? Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Sir MemeGod @Acebulf@Muboshgu Do you guys mean WP:BIO1E? She died in 2001, so I've having a really hard time seeing how WP:BLP1E applies. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm assuming they meant BIO1E, at least that's what I meant. Why do we need so many abbreviations? SirMemeGod  22:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, derp. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (O–Z), with a possible select merger. While very sad, I don’t see significant coverage outside of her birthplace newspaper. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:This can probably be closed, as everyone is in agreement that the article should either be redirected or deleted, and the main and pretty much only significant contributor to the article is also in agreement. SirMemeGod  12:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect are two very different closures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Bearian, with some of the information from this stand-alone article going into that composite victims article page. There is not enough for a stand-alone article on this victim, but the content would be appropriate along with other victims in a joint article. It would require some rewording however to make sure it is NPOV. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]