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. There seems to be general agreement that Wikipedia is not a memorial applies if the fellow isn't otherwise encyclopedic. There is the question of his representation in a film. Like his role in the hijacking, this can be (and is) dealt with in relevant articles without having a biography. There therefore remains the question of whether the biographies of living persons policy applies to this recently deceased person. There seems to be a broad assent to this notion, and I believe it's credible. This would suggest that our existing coverage in Flight 93 National Memorial, United 93 (film) is adequate. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 rife with speculation, indicating that people assume he would have fought the terrorists, without any actual proof. Suggest deletion, or redirecting her name to some relevant article. >Radiant< 11:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, and from reading the article I gather it has turned into an incentive for anyone desperate to dig up even the smallest bit of info on his life: "a <URL> offers more details" - yuck. Resurgent insurgent 11:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:NOT a memorial. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Google news archive [1] brings up numerous results. Needs a complete rewrite though for the article to become encyclopedic. Delete per WP:BLP1E and Rossheth. --Bren ^talk 11:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As for reasons above. However, I note that Wikipedia's articles about 9/11 don't have a list or listing of the persons who died in the attack. There is a link to a website called "Project 2,996" which was a memorial last year for each of the persons who died. I spent a lot of time reading about the different persons, starting with Edelmirio Abad, and there are a lot of interesting stories there. Some people died instantly, such as on the 97th floor of Tower 1. Some endured the misery of being trapped, such as the ones at the RiskWaters conference in Windows on the World. There were many heroes, such as Welles Crowther, the "man in the bandanna", who should have an article of his own. Wikipedia is not a memorial, however, and while a decision about which victims are notable and which aren't might seem cold-hearted, it's not. I'd like to see an ongoing WikiProject on 9/11 as a compromise.Mandsford 11:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start with WikiProject Terrorism, I would think. There was a WikiProject for the 9/11 truth movement that was deleted as POV. There was also the fork which I think is now known as http://sep11memories.org/. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-As with all the 9/11 victims that have come up on AfD lately, the guideline WP:BLP1E is appropriate. The only thing notable about him is the fact that he died in a famous event. Not notable in himself.--Rossheth | Talk to me 11:56, 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: per above. Have I said yet that I love WP:BLP1E?  RGTraynor  14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pretty much covered by the above, not a memorial, the guy was not notable in his own right, and being a victim of a notable disaster does not make one notable. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 15:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia ia not a memorial, and WP:BLP1E allows deleting of articles about people notable for being involved in one incident (would this allow deleting an article about Lee Harvey Oswald, I wonder?) Ddespite the fact he has had substantial coverage in multiple newspaper stories and other reliable sources, Wikipedia is not a news story archive. "..it's easy for his friends to imagine that he was involved in what is believed to have been a heroic effort by passengers to thwart the terrorist hijackers.." shows the speculative nature of the article. Edison 15:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:BLP1E clearly doesn't apply because it's part of a policy on living persons. Wikipedia is not a memorial is irrelevant because of Guadagno's notability (read the policy). Guadagno was portrayed in a feature film and two cable TV movies. It's easy to find news stories about him [2], [3], [4]. And he was in the news again last month [5]. Guadagno is obviously notable. There's no good reason to censor this article. Steve8675309 01:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I dont believe WP:BLP1E should apply strictly for people currently alive. This is still a biography. What else was this 9/11 victim noteworthy of during his life, besides Flight 93? After death, I do understand the Wildlife Refuge built a memorial in his name, but I don't see why that would make him notable based on that. As for the feature films, the character based on Richard Guadagno was not portrayed by Richard, instead played by actors. Even then do feature films specifically mention him by name? I haven't seen United 93 in a while but the airline passengers were just airline passengers. As for comparing Richard Guadagno to Lee Harvey Oswald; Oswald was notable in several events, has 114 citations on his article, heck I even learnt about him in my year 9 history class - in Australia! He is a well recognised historical figure. WP:WAX. I continue to stand by my delete. Never forget, though unfortunately delete off Wikipedia. --Bren ^talk 06:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Feel free to lobby to change the policy (WP:BLP1E), but right now it applies to living people only. And Guadagno is the primary subject of multiple independent secondary source stories (see links above). That makes him notable (WP:BIO) and negates the 'not a memorial' argument. Regarding the Flight 93 passengers in general, they aren't notable for dying, they are notable for thwarting a terrorist attack. Steve8675309 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnotable except in regard to his death. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on Notability A few months after Guadango's death, a U.S. congressman introduced a bill to name a federal building after him [6]. The bill had 135 cosponsors. It passed the house, passed the senate unanimously, and was signed into law by President Bush. Can anyone explain why the president and hundreds of congressmen and senators would take time to write, sponsor, and pass a federal law about Guadagno if he "appears not to be notable"? Guadagno meets Wikipedia's notability criterion and any other reasonable definition of notability. Steve8675309 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:N & per Steve. Carlossuarez46 21:52, 21 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 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Richard is not among those that made phone calls. Nonetheless, he is subject of numerous news articles [7] and web sources [8] that demonstrate notability and I think provide what we need to make a proper biographical, encyclopedic article. Not all 9/11 victims have the same notability, but what passengers on flight 93 did before their death is notable. As such, it has been portrayed in film, and been subject of extensive coverage by reliable sources. That's definitely not the case for most 9/11 victims. All that said, the article needs a lot of work to bring in up to acceptable standards, with proper referencing and all. --Aude (talk) 12:54, 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.