Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivor registry

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 keep. Note that this does not preclude a merge as suggested. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor registry

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourcing. As an exercise, I removed everything I couldn't find an RS for, and all that remained was the article title, so it seems to not be notable enough for an article. I did find usage of the term for things like cancer survivor registries, or holocaust survivor registries, but that is not what the article is about. Cerejota (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to Aftermath of the September 11 attacks, and then delete the article without leaving a redirect. (Changing to "Delete", see below) This article is about two survivor registries created in the immediate aftermath of 9-11; neither of them appear to have received any significant news coverage as far as I can find, so it fails WP:N. As nominator noted, there are many other "survivor registries" for cancer survivors etc. which seem to be more active and notable, so a redirect to the Aftermath article would be counterproductive; most people looking for "survivor registry" would be looking for something quite different. If a redirect must be left, the name should be changed, to something like 9-11 survivor registry. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ixnay on the merge and delete. If merged a redirect must be left behind. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, my !vote is delete. There's nothing sourced to merge in any case. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 911 aspect is notable and I have added citations to news reports and books. But history did not start with the internet and 911 and there are similar issues for other major disasters. I have made a start on fleshing out the article to cover these too. Developing articles rather than deleting them is our editing policy. Warden (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the material you added can be easily merged into The Holocaust (or related sub articles), Red Cross (or related articles), and September 11 attacks (or related sub-articles). There is no independent notability for "Survivor registry", there are only examples of things called "survivor registries" - at best a WP:SYNTH exercise. There is no need for an independent article on this topic because all the information could fit with ease elsewhere, and the redirect could go to multiple places, so deciding on one would be unfair to the others. The only way I see this being saved as an entry is as a dab page, that lists the different articles for which the term "survivor registry" might be used, but that is also a bit ridiculous considering the topics - I doubt someone searches for "survivor registry" looking for info on 911 or The Holocaust. --Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going out on a limb here, because although it is a kind of synthesis, it still should be kept. Some articles need to be kept precisely because WP is the only place for such aggregated information needed by our core readership - college and high-school students. It's unique in that it collects similar information on a sequela of different events. Bearian (talk)

The turn it into a list of survivor registries. What happens is that the topic is so not notable independently, there are no institutions called survivor registries. You see the problem? This approaches near-hoax levels of non-notability.--Cerejota (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I would not oppose that move or change. Bearian (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its present form. improved by col Warden into a decent start for an article. I don't think there's any real qurestion that such registries have references are discussed in sources. It's more than a list, so I would oppose such a move. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 2 September 2011 (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.