Moved from Proposals for new projects. -Frazzydee 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Moved from Proposals for closing projects/Archive SPQRobin ^(inc!) 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum.

Could an admin on sep11 please post a link to this discussion from sep11:Main Page? Thanks. Stifle 19:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin on sep11 please post a link to this discussion from sep11:In Memoriam, the actual homepage? Thanks. 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Have done so. Rich Farmbrough 11:18 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Also see previous discussion/vote pages linked above

1. Rspeer 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sounds reasonable. Feydey 21:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. I mean whilst there is considerable emotion attached to this event for many people, it is one of many thousands of terrorist attacks to have happened in the last decade, and the place for this sort of info is not on this page. I think that the information should certainly not be deleted and Ii think the propsals to move the information, see below, are the best. --Wisden17 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. It should not be deleted, but a move is certainly necessary. --JayCeeH 01:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Just close the database, this shouldn't need so many petitions. Ashibaka 03:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not really needed in the first place, and per Wisden17. —Nightstallion (?) 07:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. How many votes/discussions on this do we need to have? Every one of them is strongly for getting this out of the Wikimedia project space. As before, I'm fine with delete or save it wherever someone else wants it. It seems the content has already been salvaged, so delete. I'm American, but acting as if we're the only ones to suffer a loss is simply insulting to those that suffered from the tsunami, etc. - Taxman 13:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Someone please get rid of it. The wub 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. We always discuss about the deletion and the project is still there!. Just merge its content to Sep 11 article in wikipedia or elsewhere. As far as this project remains open, people can easily blame that Wikimedia Foundation and its projects are just American oriented. Manjithkaini 14:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   sep11 wiki consists of articles that were deleted from main wiki as not notable. 68.166.50.142 15:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10. Kernigh 19:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Naconkantari 22:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. The move proposal already got overwhelming support. Just do it. GeorgeStepanek 03:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Close the project, archive the content, and redirect the domain to a page (probably on Meta or the Foundation Wiki) explaining how people can request a copy of the database dump should they wish to. Getting it would involve sending an email (to an address that someone will actually read, and where it wont get swamped by other miscellaneous requests) saying they want it, where they want the copy emailed to and that they understand the license it is under (presumably GFDL). Thryduulf (en,commons) 16:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. The Jade Knight 23:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Absolutely. Bravo for being bold enough to nominate this...it's something that I've been wanting to do myself but never got around to it. Wikipedia is not America-centric and I don't see a reason why any Wikimedia projects need to be. It's insulting to those who died in other equally or more horrific events to say that September 11th is the only one worth opening an entire wiki for. Why isn't it a memorial site in general? It's also probably worth noting that the September 11th wiki is actually a subdomain of Wikipedia...also see the logo...all the more reason for it not to be America-centric, as one of Wikipedia's strengths is the fact that it is one of the few sites that is truly international. Besides, anything really notable should already be on Wikipedia. In my opinion, Wikimedia is far better off without this. -Frazzydee 04:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. See above. Covington 07:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Historically, it's biased to give an entire project to a single event. In terms of human loss, other events far outweigh 9/11. In terms of tragedy, other events far outweigh 9/11. For wikipedia to be a genuine reflection of global knowledge, it needs to refrain from such bias. This is rather a case of ethnocentric attitude and social superiority exerted by a single, narrowminded nation. User:Superdave

    Absolutely. 80.236.55.6 12:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18. It's time to archive it and stop misleading people into thinking its Wikipedia with the confusing sep11.wikipedia.org domain name. It's been nothing more than a vandal's playground for too long. Angela 12:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. It should be deleted, for the better... --IAMTHEEGGMAN|^{Goo Goo G'Joob} 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Delete it the people above sum up many good reasons! Wellparp 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24.37.223.159 18:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21. Donarreiskoffer 06:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. --Oldak Quill 12:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Per Angela. It's not encyclopedic. MaxSem 15:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support to close. 555 16:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    81.214.208.110 18:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    --213.63.13.107 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (BBird)[reply]

25. Per Frazzydee and Angela. - Tangotango 00:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Not appropriate for wikimedia site. Lethe@en.wp 02:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
27. --Sasa Stefanovic 02:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. NPOV... -- fr:Caerbannog
29. Aphaia 08:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. --Snowdog 10:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. --Radouch 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. I've lost count of how many discussions, proposals and votes there have been that have come out with a clear consensus of getting rid of this thing. Please let this be the last. The content will survive as it's already been copied elsewhere, so let's just hit the big red delete button as soon as possible. Trilobite 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Yes, please do. Move it elsewhere if someone wants it, and get rid of it. Tuf-Kat 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Its existence is a precedent to create wikis for every terrorist attack. Luigi30 13:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Perfectly reasonable proposal. --Pmsyyz 17:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed with Luigi--24.250.154.244 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

36. Get it out of here. I don't care if it closed or moved. OUT! --Michael180 00:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Get it out of here. It's been almost five years. --Cyde 03:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, please, please remove it. Frankly, it's a bit of an embarrasment. I won't become POV here, but there are other events in the last 10 / 100 / 1000 years that are a leetle more significant. 202.67.100.197 09:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

38.   <STyx 17:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. I agree. Remove it, please. Andrevan 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. The material should be moved from Wikipedia to an off-site memorial. Taai 06:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Should be moved out of Wikipedia, maybe to another Wikimedia site, if necessary. Lankiveil 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
42. Go ahead and archive it. There's barely any reason to keep it running. Are we going to make a wiki dedicated to every tragedy, ever? Do we have a Hurricane Katrina wiki, too? Phoenix-forgotten 01:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. I don't understand why it was a seperate wiki in the first place. Anyhow, close it, archive it, move the contents, I don't care. Jeroenvrp 11:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Yes, close. James F. (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Close, not encyclopedic. Wolfram 18:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it should be closed. It is not appropriate for wikipedia. 61.68.211.15 13:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

46. --Elian 04:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Admrboltz 20:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Michał P. 15:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC) It existed too long. Should be moved to another page, e.g. http://11september-memorial.wikimedia.org (it is only a proposition).[reply]
49. Ske 21:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. It's clear that this wiki has nothing to do with an encyclopedia, thus should not be under wikipedia.org. The best place for the content would be a wiki (managed or not by the Wikimedia foundation) dedicated to all tragedies where humans killed humans, regardless the action was legal or not, was ordered by a country or not, and of course regardless of the origins of the victims. Something more personnal than Wikipedia or even Wikinews (reaction of people who knew vicitms etc.). That wiki may be hosted under something like *.inmemoriamwiki.org, with en. de. fr. as sub-wikis. That kind of wiki may be suited for wikimedia foundation. In its present condition, it's not. --AGiss 12:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Perhaps we could find someone to maintain a wikicities project with this, and Angela could facilitate a transfer to there. Not neccessary though, we should discontinue this anyway.&#9999; Sverdrup 18:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Aflm 22:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Messedrocker - If we were to keep this wiki, shouldn't we have Hurricane Katrina Wiki, Darfur Wiki, Poloponnesian War Wiki ;)... the list goes on. 22:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Hołek ҉ 09:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC). But first we have to delete from it any form of vandalism (like info about Homer Simpson, etc.). Then close it.
55. Wikiacc | (talk) (en.w | en.w.t) 19:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Close/Lock the database/Archive —Locke Cole • t • c 22:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

56. Austin 05:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Sarge Baldy 19:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Dbl2010 20:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. --Tarawneh 22:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Prodego ^Talk 01:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Brazucs (_TALK | ^CONTRIBS) 09:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support, with all respect to the emotions and feelings of the involved. That doesn't belong to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a therapy/support group. There have been many other tragedies (with much higher death figures yet they don't have a wiki as well). Wikipedia is not just about USA. drini ☎ 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Patio 05:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Eventually move the content to something more general like wikinews, wikidisaster or wikihistory, you name it.[reply]
64. Adam7davies 19:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. --Jonathaneo 08:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support because that is out of period project. so close and move to "MemorialWiki". -- Alpha for knowledge 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Archer7 23:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. -- Mathias Schindler 16:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - not encyclopedic and not compatible with the other Wikimedia wikis. ~ Seb35 14:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Don't delete, just stop it. --Slade ^pt.wp 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support -- this was a large tragedy but the world was and is full of many larger tragedies. Making one special does not treat the matter right. So please close. Arnomane 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. There are many tragedies in many countries and this project is POV. It is also unecyclopeadic. Alan Liefting 05:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support I agree POV and unecyclopeadic. Weft 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. I lost a loved one in the attack and even I agree with this proposal. Maunakea 20:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Very Very Strong Support Making so much ado about this event is an insult to the victims of far greater tragedies like the Holocaust. 202.177.246.3 08:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

75. Support dissociation from Wikipedia. This kind of thing has every reason to exist, but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Stevage 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support closure. It is not right for a global project like Wikimedia to have a wiki on one incident to the exclusion of other far more serious, devastating, deadly and historically significant ones such as the bombing of Hiroshima-Nagasaki. Even if the content is kept, it should be moved off the wikipedia domain and disconnected from the Foundation. Loom91 09:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support closure This doesn't have anything to do with the goals of Wikipedia - there seems to be no regard, for example, for NPOV or NOR. --Constantine Evans 04:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support closure Project is dead. Who even knows what's true on the site? Gerard Foley 10:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support it's existance is surely in breach of NPOV. Computerjoe 10:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Hitri odgovor) 06:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
81. Support closure nothing to do with Wikipedia. One hell of a giant stab in the face for WP:CSB. - FrancisTyers 12:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support closure FAR 21:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I think a monument isn´t encyclopedic.[reply]
83. Support --I proposed this on several places some months ago with no results at all. Perhaps this will change things. With all due respect to the relatives, but to have a separate project just for one incident and ignore others far more devastating ones doesn't seem fair to me. This is also in stark contrast to the principle of NPOV. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support - obsolete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. --Bennyp77 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)What's the point! Just because it was a terrorist attack isn't a reason to create an entire encylopedia on it. I'm fine with the article in english Wikipedia. Speaking of which... this wiki's main page just re-routes you to the articles in english wikipedia!![reply]
86. Support Maksim 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support--Emily007 08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support. (Oppose voters: Closing a wiki means a lock, not deletion.) --Rory096 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Ausir 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Node ue 01:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC) (per proposer)[reply]
91. Support -- move out of Wikimedia's namespace to a third-party host. Smyth 08:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support -- not encyclopedic -- Adriatikus 23:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support -- If we had a project for everything like this ... Aaahh!!!!!! Blue caterpillar 21:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support -- Landroni 18:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support. Recentism in extreme. /The Phoenix 08:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support closure Argos --62.217.251.238 16:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I explictly support deletion of this wikipedia, it is totally inappropriate use of wikipedia structure. --69.175.17.193 05:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

97. Support. The content should be moved to a third party host. Valentinian 15:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. I don't belive that this project fits into the idea of WikiMedia. Either way, the project is surely not appropriate to continue, as many previous users suggested. --Somebody 13:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Strong Support--Милан Јелисавчић 16:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Anchjo 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Either there's a memorial for all attacks or no memorial. Sep11 wiki sort of gives you a whiny Americanization feeling. Pronoun 17:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support per Angela and Jerome Baum. Bigtop 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support closure. There are many terrorist attacks while this one may be more notable then the rest i just dont think it needs a dedicated wiki, it's unlikely to ever pass 500 pages, possibly offer a copy of the last version of its database for public use. MatthewFenton 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support Closure. Falls outside our scope as I understand it. --Improv 02:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Member 17:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Any particular reason? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.92.231 (talk • contribs) .

2. --Connel MacKenzie 01:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Any particular reason? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.92.231 (talk • contribs) .

   Is it a "memorial" or is it not? It is more than slightly lame to provide a resource as a fair weather friend. Using the tragedy of 9/11 as a publicity stunt is disgusting and immoral, in my opinion. Any type of closing of the memorial will be seen as such, no matter what spin it is given. --Connel MacKenzie 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   How on earth will closing the memorial site be seen as a publicity stunt? It will simply be quietly and unceremoniously archived. 86.136.88.187 21:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   It was used as a publicity stunt - now that fewer are watching, closing is is an underhanded maneuver. --Connel MacKenzie 05:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   To my memory, it was not used as a publicity stunt. In the days after September 11, the Wikipedia was flooded with what could be considered "vanity pages" -- so these pages were moved to a better home instead of being summarily deleted, because that would've been coldhearted. I don't think there was any publicity for Wikipedia on the order of "lookit our sep11 memorial, by the way we're a great website"; in fact, I don't think there was any publicity at all.--en:User:Geoffrey 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Kmf164 16:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC) - I oppose until "a feasable and realistic plan to move the remaining content" is found. I object to simply to deleting the content without finding a new home for it. Kmf164 16:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   (moved) -- that's already what the proposal is. It isn't to delete it, but to lock it. --Node ue 01:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   The proposal is to archive the content. It will still be available to download and make other uses out of. - Taxman 19:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I suggest that we make the wiki read-only but leave the content in place. Though I did not participate in the sept11 wiki, I had several acquaintances who died in the attacks, and I have great respect for the feelings of those who were more directly affected. Continuing to host a locked wiki poses no cost of any significance to us, and the sept11 project is a far more important part of Wikipedia early history than much of the other material we are saving for historical reasons, such as w:Wikipedia:WikiMoney and more than a few essays and articles here on meta. UninvitedCompany 19:15, 27 April 2006

   (moved) -- that's already what the proposal is. It isn't to delete it, but to lock it. --Node ue 01:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I was affected by it and I agree that it doesn't need its own project, archiving it is more than satisfactory. Maunakea 20:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. You people want to get rid of information pretaining to history? If removing all unpleasant historical events is your goal then you better get busy. Let's see...delete all history pretaining to racism, murder/assassination, war, terrorist attacks, oh don't forget bad natural disasters. Those aren't pleasant either...(UTC)

   Read-only/Locked per UninvitedCompany. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   (moved) -- that's already what the proposal is. It isn't to delete it, but to lock it. --Node ue 01:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. No. It isn't hurting anyone staying there. I support keeping it simply for historical reasons, the Sept 11 wiki was the second project of Wikimedia that was ever attempted. -Masterhomer, English Wikipedia

   Should be moved to a POV proposed project, such as "share your ideas" or wiki-debates, which would contain original works, inmcluding WP sandbox poetry.Pcu123456789 16:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. The topic is serious and encyclopedia-like, the project gets quite a bit of traffic, and interest in the subject is huge. (The Wikipedia article on September 11 ranks just a pubic hair below "sex"!) That's plenty of reason to keep it right there. I checked out the "Random Article" feature recently and my impression is that a high proportion of the articles on Wikipedia are spam, so I certainly think we have space this project. I also find some the comments in favor of closing the project to be rather offensive. Can you imagine if I as an American started complaining about how many articles there are on, say, France? Article topics should reflect reader interest. They should not be parceled out on a country-by-country quota basis.Kauffner 01:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Why should it be deleted? september 11th was a historic and monumental event that changed millions of peoples lives, if thats not worthy of n enclyopedia article i don't know what is Bobeito

There really isn't any consensus on this. Some people want it deleted, other's want it locked, others want it moved to something other then *.wikipedia.org. Since this is a propose to DELETE the Sept 11 Wiki, I believe alot of these "Support" votes are invalid. -Masterhomer, English Wikipedia

You might be interested in Rodovid.org, further up this page. If the sep 11 wiki is closed its content could be moved here.--Bjwebb 20:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not sure how good a fit the content would be for a family-tree/geneology wiki, I doubt anyone would object to moving the individual memorials there. Would anyone like to volunteer to move them there? Kaldari 00:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be easy to do if we had a database dumb of the sep 11 wiki.--Bjwebb 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the project should remain active, but not as part of the *.wikipedia.org tree. It's unencyclopedic, but still important. And yes, I'd be warm to a larger project -- In Memoriam -- devoted to all sorts of human tragedy. Death is part of life. John Reid 10:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts exactly. Maunakea 20:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is an inappropriate place to be discussing this closure. If a special project shutdown page needs to be created, so be it, but don't mix this commentary and arguments with new project proposals. Discussions of this nature tend to get a little heated if there is any sort of defender of a project at all, and can get rather lengthy as well. Please move this whole thing from the already overcrowded new projects page to another location, and fix the links with Goings-on as well. BTW, the first thing I thought when I saw this was "what? again?" --Roberth 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single place this issue has been brought up, it has been declared that it is the wrong place. Unfortunately, it seems there is no "right place" to discuss the closure of the Sept 11 Wiki. As far as I can tell, this is the closest to the "right place" that exists. The policy that governs this page mentions project closure, but gives little detail as to the correct procedure. Since none of the other pages that have been used to address this issue have resulted in any actual action, I decided to try posting it here since at least it will get a steady stream of eyeballs.Kaldari 01:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've decided to be bold and make a place for it on Meta. I'm going to push my way around and see if I can get it linked on other places around Meta as well, but here it is: Proposals for closing projects. I hope you like the train wreck image that I added as well. This way it gets the attention it deserves and doesn't get buried beneath all of these new project proposals as well. I'm not going to move this discussion, but you are certainly welcome to. If you do move it, please leave a note here as a soft redirect to let people know the discussion has been moved. --Roberth 14:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the recent changes log of the wiki I cannot support an outright closure of this project, nor can I support a partial move then closure as it was suggested on 9/11 wiki move proposal for the reasons cited by Eloquence. And as Angela has voiced misgivings it would impolite to force it onto Wikicities. I suggest a move to a third party MediaWiki hosting site. There is a free site that I use for outside projects located at http://www.editthis.info/ that might be our solution. I do not know if the webmaster there would receptive but it would be worth a try. The wiki in question would be kept whole and those still editing it would still be able to do so. That's my two cents. Use it as you wish. Robert Harrison 05:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They host a Wiki on "Spanking Art", yes, art of people spanking people. It could be a lot of work monitoring for vandalism, but we should see if Wikicites (now just refered to as Wikia) will take it. Otherwise, merge into Robidov (sp?). -- Zanimum 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed some, as of late, to cleaning up material on the sep11wiki. I have also read through the various proposals to delete, move, etc. the wiki somewhere other than sep11.wikipedia.org. I don't want to put too much work into cleaning up articles if they will just end up in the garbage bin. I know that memorywiki has taken the testimonials, but don't think they have taken the sep11:Tributes_to_individuals. Many of these presumably were articles originally written on Wikipedia, but moved to sep11 wiki (per WP:BIO). If the sep11 wiki is just completely deleted without moving or archiving these articles, then I think it leaves a void. Perhaps, the bio articles about the victims could be moved back to Wikipedia (with my watchlist growing accordingly), and the tributes to memorywiki. Though, I think moving these articles back to Wikipedia has been tried before and met with resistance. In my opinion, each victim is as notable and worthy of an article as the 19 hijackers are (and a few of the "notable" victims do have Wikipedia articles). Or, as a very last resort, I might be willing to take the database, buy a domain, hosting for it. Preferably, though Wikimedia Foundation has another place to host it. --Kmf164 15:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would find great resistance to moving the articles back to Wikipedia, because the sep11 wiki was actually created in order to provide a place for articles deemed insufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I also think that you're in the minority in believing each and every one of the victims to be notable. I wonder if you consider victims of all other terrorist attacks to be notable, whether that would include victims of state terrorism (such as the tens of thousands of civilians killed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq), and whether you'd include all victims of tragic events including natural disasters (a tsunami wiki under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation, with potentially more than 200,000 entries?). This is not an attack on your opinions, I'm just genuinely interested and curious to know about why some people appear to consider those killed by the attacks of 11 September 2001 to fall into some special category of notability. Their deaths were tragic, but I've never come across a coherent justification for why we should have articles about them in Wikipedia, or tributes to them in a POV spin-off from Wikipedia, any more than we should for victims of any tragedy. I'd appreciate some insight. 86.136.92.231 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to deleting (without moving) the sep11 wiki articles. The key question is "where to move?" I'm open to John Reid's suggestion above, but I also disagree with Wikipedia's "notability" criteria when it comes to crime victims. On Wikipedia, we have many articles about *notable* criminals (murderers or terrorists) that meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability guidelines. It is the criminal act or incident that gives them the notability that they otherwise wouldn't have. Under the same standard, the victims of these notable criminals are also notable. Including both sides of the crime equation (offender and victim) also gives a fuller picture of the notable crime. Now, considering 9/11... The hijackers are among criminals (many others included) that have been deemed notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia. It's the event, 9/11, that brought these 19 their notability. It's the same event, 9/11, that also makes each victim notability (and verifiable). Is 9/11 a special case? No. We have articles about other notable crimes and criminals. I won't object to including articles about the victims of those other notable crime incidents/criminals, provided we have verifiability. Finally, I also note that we have en:Category:Murder victims by nationality. For the most part, people in this category were non-notable until their death; but because they were victims of a notable criminal/crime incident, they became notable. Should these be deleted? Kmf164 06:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's incorrect to believe that 19 people who deliberately decide to commit a terrorist act of such a massive scale are at the same level of notability as the average Joe Citizen who became a victim of the act. Many many people around the world will want to know more about the attackers - what is their background, what was their motive? It helps people try and come to terms with such a huge event. A short biography about Tom Smith who had 3 kids and worked in marketing is of absolutely no interest to anyone except people who knew him. Don't mean to be harsh, but adding thousands of articles that no-one will look at seems a little pointless. --HappyDog 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's definitely not something that should be at a .wikipedia.org URL. Stifle 18:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge it with the other September 11th articles in whatever way you see fit. 72.161.51.73 15:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article will ever be deleted no matter how much consensus is reached. Americans believe it to the greatest tragedy the world has ever witnessed so this website will remain for all eternity. I have resigned myself to that fact and I suggest all those who, like me, believe that this should be deleted resign themselves too. There is really no point trying to convince Americans that tragedies like the Holocaust are far worse than 9/11. Apparently 3000 Americans being killed is an attack on freedom but 7 million people being massacred in concentration camps is not such an attack. As for things like Hiroshima, there is no point in even talking to the Americans about it. Japan was at war with America at that time so Japanese citizens, like Iraqis, deserved to die. Obviously it does not make sense to have a memorial for non-Americans.

The three things that strike me, are

• there will be renewed interest with the recent film.
• It's shocking how much hasn't been covered.
• en: has been rejecting of the factual material in the past - perhaps if this wiki was closed, some would be allowed back in.
• Perhaps there's other things than closeing or leaving that can be done. For example if we move out the memorials and link to them, an extensive NPOV info source on Seot 11 couild be created.

Rich Farmbrough 11:23 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Also, could someone clarify what support votes and oppose votes mean? E.g. Bobeito put his vote under support with comment that the wiki should stay open. Ashikaba put his vote under support with a comment stating that the wiki should be closed. <d>WTF?</d> But for future reference, of course, there are no votes, right? Because polls are evil. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 20:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this vote worked. There are people who are in Support of the delete who voted Support and there are people who want to keep the Project who also voted Support. It was too confusing. I'm on Wikipedia, but I would create a user name here and vote if the vote were conducted correctly. But I also do not know what closing a project entails. Does all this content just vanish off the internet? I would not be in favor of that. And incidentally, I do not think that the logic that goes "Other disasters don't have one so this should not have one" is good logic for three reasons:

1. This horror created a sea change around the world and the nations politically and militarily.
2. There has to be a "first" wikiproject for a disaster.
3. When a good thing is done, it is ok if that good thing is done, even if other good things are left undone. Do not throw babies out with the bathwater.

I do agree that this is not neutral but I would not expect a memorial to be perfectly neutral. That's ok. There is no reason to overdo neutrality when we are talking about the intentional and maliciously designed death and destruction of thousands of innocent people.

Finally, so many people argued that this is not "encyclopedic". I agree, but I do not understand why it should be. After all, this is not the encyclopedia part. This is the Meta part and it is for less encyclopedic things. Either I do not understand something or the people who made that comment do not understand something. --205.206.55.45 01:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of deleting the entire site. It has been a galvanizing force for a lot of what the United States has been doing over the past 5 years, whether we agree with those actions or not. I saw that someone above mentioned moving the content to Wikia, and I would certainly approve of that idea. I don't think it should be part of the Wikipedia domain any longer, as it doesn't fit the standards that we have set for domains, i.e. languages. I think the support to remove it from Wikipedia is overwhelming, but I don't think that most of the people would want to see the entire site just deleted. Chadlupkes 21:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why does this still exist!!! IT IS A MEMORIAL, NOT A ENCYCLOPEDIA.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.50.20 (talk • contribs) .