Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Glick (September 11, 2001 attack victim)

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. A suitable redirect may be arranged. See reasoning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Guadagno. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Glick (September 11, 2001 attack victim)[edit]

He died in the 9/11 attacks. While that is very sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he appears not to be notable except for his death. The article is essentially void of encyclopedic content, telling about his wife, student fraternity, and a few details on the 9/11 attacks already covered in our actual articles on the topic. Suggest deletion, or redirecting her name to some relevant article. >Radiant< 11:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically per nomination. Resurgent insurgent 11:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NOT a memorial. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-As per all the other 9/11 nominations, tragic, but WP:BLP1E is clear that we should cover the event, not the person.--Rossheth | Talk to me 12:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from Wikipedia since there is no notability beyond being a 9/11 victim. However, this article is considerably better than the one on the 9/11 Memorial Wiki which is currently locked. Is it possible to request that they update it with this? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for all 9/11 memorials. These are getting old fast. --Nonstopdrivel 13:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel sorry for all 9/11 victims, but it's time to move on. 9/11 victims are not important to Wikipedia.--Edtropolis 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its sad, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site.-- danntm ^T _C 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his name is still recognizable as one of the passengers of Flight 93 who attempted to take back the plane. Numerous news articles written after the attacks referenced him, some extensively. He is a prominent character in two movies dramatizing the events of Flight 93 (United 93 (film), Flight 93 (TV film)). United 93 was just released in 2006, and was a major film. The point being, this is not just an anonymous victim of the attacks. ATren 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, there is another Jeremy Glick with ties to 9/11, so removing or redirecting this Jeremy Glick may lead readers to the wrong article - and this other Jeremy Glick is actually a controversial 9/11 figure who had a well-known run in with Bill O'Reilly. I don't know if that should be a consideration or not, but I'm just raising that as a possible issue with a delete or redirect. ATren 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That is actually a good reason to merge & redirect, as Edison indicates below. Yes, he did those things, but so did several other people. >Radiant< 09:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. At best he warrants a mention on the article about the flight - and he's already got one there. Perhaps a redirect to the flight is appropriate. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To United Flight 93. Arguing for keeping the article are the facts that he relayed important info to authorites from a phone on the plane (but so did 11 others) and he stated that he was going to participate in the attempt to re-take the plane (as did a number of others) and that he was apparently depicted in movies about the event. A narrative account of the events on the plane is better contained in a single article, rather than in articles about each participant, when their individual actions are not documented, and he is not well known other than for his participation in this historic incident, so because Wikipedia is not a memorial, and not an archive of news coverage of people who had were written about for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, a separate article is not needed. Edison 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ATren, second choice redirect per Edison. Newyorkbrad 16:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What would happen if we put every person who died in 9/11 on here? Seriously, ~Crowstar~ 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ATren. Well known figure. In response to crowstar: What would happen if we put nobody who died in 9/11 on here? We wouldn't be an encyclopedia, now would we? Carlossuarez46 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We still cover the event, nobody is disputing that. >Radiant< 09:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Glick is notable. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to people who are deceased. Wikipedia is not a memorial doesn't pertain because of Glick's notability. Steve8675309 02:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP does apply to the recently deceased. >Radiant< 09:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see where it says that WP:BLP applies to the "recently deceased". Could you please point out where BLP states that? Steve8675309 22:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not the notable Jeremy Glick. The page Jeremy Glick should probably remain as a disambiguation page, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Please see Another 9/11 Flight 93 passenger's AfD --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-there have been a number of more recent AfDs on 9/11 victims (here, here, and here), and it seems that the consensus has changed over the notability of these people.--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He was mentioned in official federal reports as having an active role in trying to take over the plane. Has been portrayed in film. Plenty of notoriety to keep this active --XLR8TION 04:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Celebrated victim. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 06:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a very large number of reliable sources that are about Jeremy, including hundreds of news articles [1] and thousands of web sources. [2] That's not the case for all 9/11 victims, but he is clearly notable and notable for something he did before his death. That includes the phone call to his wife. It was through his phone call, and those made by a few other passengers, that they learned what was going on and decided to do something. Doing something in this situation is also quite notable, and something that makes him more than just a "victim". Contrary to myths and rumors out there, NORAD was not at all in position to intercept the aircraft. The plane crashed at 10:03 am, but NORAD was not notified that Flight 93 was missing until 10:15 am -- well after the time the plane already crashed. If not for the notable actions of Jeremy and the others, Ziad Jarrah would have had no problem reaching the intended target, the United States Capitol. 9/11 was sure horrible, but would have been something else if they too crashed the plane into the Capitol. What Jeremy did is definitely notable, notable enough to be portrayed in several films, be mentioned in numerous newspaper articles, and other reliable sources. WP:NOT a memorial and WP:BLP do not apply to notable people, which Jeremy clearly is. Though the article is completely unsourced and needs a bit of work to bring up to expected standards. --Aude (talk) 12:21, 22 June 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.