| Revision as of 15:49, 5 July 2022 editTigerShark (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators17,510 edits →List of 9/11 victims: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:50, 5 July 2022 edit undoTigerShark (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators17,510 edits →List of 9/11 victimsNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| Hi. Can you please expand your closing statement and explain how you arrived at your conclusions (including why you decided to close at this time and not relist). Thanks, ]<sup class="sysop-show">]'']</sup> 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | Hi. Can you please expand your closing statement and explain how you arrived at your conclusions (including why you decided to close at this time and not relist). Thanks, ]<sup class="sysop-show">]'']</sup> 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi Levivich. I am not sure what to add to expand the closing statement. As I mentioned, from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus that the subject of the list is notable, and also that being a list of deaths doesn't immediately exclude it as a memorial. There is plenty of discussion around the list being trimmed, which is a separate matter from deletion. I certainly could not see a policy based consensus to delete. As for relisting, it seemed that there had been a significant discussion, with LISTN and NOTMEMORIAL discussed in depth and didn't see scope for much new coming out of a relisting. Do you feel that a relisting would likely lead to a consensus for anything other that the article being kept? ] (]) 15:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | :Hi Levivich. I am not sure what to add to expand the closing statement. As I mentioned, from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus that the subject of the list is notable, and also that being a list of deaths doesn't immediately exclude it as a memorial. There is plenty of discussion around the list being trimmed, which is a separate matter from deletion. I certainly could not see a policy based consensus to delete. As for relisting, it seemed that there had been a significant discussion, with LISTN and NOTMEMORIAL discussed in depth and didn't see scope for much new coming out of a relisting. Do you feel that a relisting would likely lead to a policy based consensus for anything other that the article being kept? ] (]) 15:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:50, 5 July 2022
Archives:
- 2005 - 17th April
- 2006 - 4th April - 22nd May - 11th June - 23rd June - 15th July
- 2007 - 3rd February - 10th March - 31st August - 8th September - 7th November
- 2008 - 14th February - 4th May - 10th October
- 2009 - 16th May
- 2011 - 15th December
- 2015 - 12th May
- 2021 - 19th April
- 2021 - 27th May
****** Please place new discussions below this line ******
List of 9/11 victims
Hi. Can you please expand your closing statement and explain how you arrived at your conclusions (including why you decided to close at this time and not relist). Thanks, Levivich 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Levivich. I am not sure what to add to expand the closing statement. As I mentioned, from reading the discussion there seems to be consensus that the subject of the list is notable, and also that being a list of deaths doesn't immediately exclude it as a memorial. There is plenty of discussion around the list being trimmed, which is a separate matter from deletion. I certainly could not see a policy based consensus to delete. As for relisting, it seemed that there had been a significant discussion, with LISTN and NOTMEMORIAL discussed in depth and didn't see scope for much new coming out of a relisting. Do you feel that a relisting would likely lead to a policy based consensus for anything other that the article being kept? TigerShark (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)