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.
She died in the 9/11 attacks. While that is very sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and she appears not to be notable except for her death. The article isn't primarily about her, but about explaining the attacks, which obviously is better covered on e.g. September 11 attacks; see also WP:COATRACK. Suggest deletion, or redirecting her name to some relevant article. >Radiant<10:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many articles on passengers of United 93 on this site. Her death is notable and she has even been portrayed in film. Other passengers such as Todd Beamer, Tom Burnett, and Mark Bingham are on Wikipedia as well. Why is she being targeted? I find targeting her article not only racist but ignorant.--XLR8TION10:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, I dont see Mark Bingahm's, Todd Beamer, or Tom Burnett's articles up for deletion Radiant. When are you going to start the deletion process? --XLR8TION17:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable except for the circumstances of her death. This all depends on notability outside the crash - for instance, as regards the other 9/11 victims mentioned by XLR8TION, Beamer appears to be notable, whilst Burnett is far less so. EliminatorJRTalk11:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BLP1E. Playing the race card here is rather reprehensible. Why isn't Burnett being deleted? Because his several cellphone calls during the flight received widespread media attention and notoriety. What about Martinez is notable, other than she was on the flight? RGTraynor 14:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoUnited Flight 93. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and this article is purely a memorial. Wrong place, wrong time. Being mentioned in a couple of newspaper stories does not require that an encyclopedia article be maintained. Edison16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While I think the BLP arguments are non-nonsensical (especially since we are not dealing with a living subject), I do see this article as more of a memorial then anything which would violate WP:NOT. It's a weak delete because the Anna Svidersky article is essentially the same type of article just substituting a my space phenomenon for the United 93 movie.AgneCheese/Wine18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, While it is true that the Waleska Martínez article seems a little like a memorial tribute in style, I'm sure that User: XLR8TION will add more substance to it. I may be wrong, but being the only Hispanic in said flight may be reason enough to make her notable at least within the Hispanic community. Tony the Marine18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Great. Can you source that? Or are you just presuming that since she was Hispanic, she must be notable, absent any evidence or sourcing whatsoever? Now that is a genuinely racist argument, if so. RGTraynor 20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the Comment, as I see it, it would be up to the creator of the article to source it in the event that it would be true. I was assuming. Now, "stop" trying to turn this into a "race" issue. If she was ( and this is an assumption) the only Hispanic in the flight, it would make her notable to the Hispanic community weather you like it or not. As I have stated before, it will be up to the creator of the article to provide sourced information of this or any type of notablility. Tony the Marine21:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the Comment on the Comment , i cant recall the exact guideline, but I do believe that notability amoung a certain group of people does not make one notable enough to be on wikipedia.--Alphamone07:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, You are wrong. Let's take for example the most popular singer in India or actor in China. They may not be notable in the United States, but non-the-less are notable to a as you say, a "certain" group of people. Let me point out that Puerto Ricans are not a "certain" group. There are more then 6 million Puerto Ricans in the United States and in the island of Puerto Rico. Tony the Marine08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the et cetera the exact guidelines you're looking for are WP:N and WP:BIO. "Notability among a certain group of people" does not make one notable assumming it is a small group, e.g. a small town or high school. A country, especially a heavily populated one like, oh say, China, is most definitely not a small group. >Radiant<10:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For someone who demands to stop turning this into a "race" issue (something you started, come to that) you seem awfully determined to make the subject's race the make-or-break question here. That being said, using your example of the most popular singer in India, that person would have widespread evidence of notability in the form of starring roles in film, newspaper and magazine articles, record sales and the like. If you have sources that establish Martinez's notability, biographical articles about her, please present them! If your argument remains that well, Martinez must be notable because she was Hispanic and so Hispanics must therefore care about her, that boils down to unproven and unsupported speculation. RGTraynor 12:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tony is absolutely right. Many Indian singers/actors from Bollywood may not be notable to people outside of India. Furthermore, how is that adult gay and straight porn stars get to have articles on this site when they havent done anything for society? Ms. Martinez lost her life to a paramilitary group just like Daniel Pearl, Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer, Leon Klinghoffer, Tom Burnett, etc.. yet since she is a gay Latina she gets automatically nominated for deletion?? Is this fair? NO! If her article gets nominated for deletion than the same should go for all porn stars and the names I just mentioned because according to some they are non-notables according to their standards and not the site's standards. Let's not stop there! Let's delete Adam Walsh, Megan Skanka and other victims of pedophiles because their deaths did not launch national movements or their stories were not immortalized in books and film (Walsh had two made for TV films) just like Ms. Martinez. --XLR8TION17:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable by wikipedia standards (see WP:BIO) because of the multiple news stories about her. The Wikipedia is not a memorial policy doesn't apply because of her notability. Saying that the page should be deleted because of WP:BLP1E doesn't makes sense because that's a policy that applies to living people. Steve867530913:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is noteworthy because enough independent coverage has been done about her we have enough info for a complete biography. She isn't just known for her one event. -N16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, while BLP1E is a living person biography policy, what it says is just a relevant here, because it's about notability. Equally relevant is WP:NOT#News, which as BLP1E says is the rationale behind the policy.--Rossheth | Talk to me20:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely there's no need to delve deep into Wikipedia policy here. The question is; did this person achieve notability during her life? And the answer sadly has to be "No". There is absolutely no way, and this has been agreed repeatedly via consensus, that the encyclopedia can support articles on multiple victims of crime, whether that's the thousands of people killed during 9/11 or a single person killed in a mugging. Her race, sex or sexual preferences have absolutely nothing to do with this, because they do not relate to her life or death. Compare, for example, David Morley whose death was relevant to his sexuality, or Murder of Anthony Walker which had relevance to his race. It is frankly unpleasant to see editors claiming racism or homophobia on the part of Wikipedia in this case. EliminatorJRTalk00:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Eliminator, Radiant did propose the deletion of other passengers on Flight 93 such as Mark Bingham, Tom Burnett, and Todd Beamer, but simply it was lip service. There is an obvious doubles-standard here that these passengers who did not achieved notoriety in their lives also still have their articles whereas a Gay Latin female gets automatically nominated. Her immortality lives on in film and books and in Congressional reports relating to 9/11. So the question remains: When do Bingham, Beamer, and Burnett get their articles deleted? If Radiant doesn't start the process, than I will. --XLR8TION00:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Deletions It's painfully obvious that WP:BLP1E is being misapplied because it's a policy for living people. But if it's going to be misapplied in this case, then it also needs to be misapplied to delete the pages of the four Flight 93 hijackers [1][2][3][4] in order to preserve WP's "absolute and non-negotiable"[5] policy of presenting a neutral point of view. Are the editors who want this page deleted going to nominate those pages for deletion as well? Steve867530901:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge with United Airlines Flight 93 Her notability is more borderline than Jeremy Glick. Martinez attempted to make a phone call (from row 34), but the call did not connect. That said, there are numerous news articles that talk about Martinez [6] and I think enough web sources about her to provide needed sources to make this a proper, encyclopedic article. WP:BLP (news story) rule is intended for people (like those subject if Internet memes and such), where they are in the news, but the sources available are inadequate to make a complete biographical article beyond the one event. In this case, there are plenty of sources. That said, sources are not as plentiful as for Jeremy Glick and a few others, but there are significantly more sources about Martinez than there are about most, the less notable 9/11 victims. (for example, picked one at random [7]) As the article is now, though, it only has to references. It needs quite a bit more work to bring it up to expected standards. --Aude (talk) 12:38, 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.
