Sep11wiki/Request for deletion

In Memoriam: September 11, 2001

Original discussion

Project proposals

Discussion 2005–2006

Transwikied request from en:Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Sept11_Memorial_Wiki, closed as "should be taken to meta"
This discussion took place on Meta:Requests for deletion where it was not appropriate. villy ♦✎ 21:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
This thread was moved from Meta:Requests for deletion to Meta:Babel. Iam moving it again from Meta:Babel to a new separate page, Sep11wiki/Request for deletion, because Babel requests that we only use one line with a link to another page. I have also created a Template:Sep11wiki to link to related pages. --Kernigh 21:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days of Wikipedia, the September 11 Memorial Wiki was created as a spin-off of the regular English Wikipedia. It is in many ways an aberration. Although it uses the Wikipedia name and domain name, it does not follow any of the rules of Wikipedia (such as NOV, original research, etc.) and basically acts as a separate project. It has not been actively maintained in years (as you can tell by the outdated logo), and has become a playground for vandals. Useful content from the Memorial wiki should be merged back into the English Wikipedia where appropriate, and perhaps some of the more personal content can be moved to Wikibooks. The project itself, however, is not relavent to the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation or the Wikipedia community (that being the creation of an encyclopedia). Thus I believe that sep11.wikipedia.org should be closed. As the project was originally a spin-off of the English Wikipedia, I think this is the most appropriate place to discuss merging it back. Discussions about this issue on Meta have not attracted enough attention to be useful. Kaldari 20:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a bit silly to discuss the future of a project on the Rfd page. If we could avoid on this page, which is yet difficult to maintain, any kind of political (sort of ...) debate, I think it would be great. Unless otherwise expressed, I'm going to create a meta page in order do discuss sites lockings ([[Projects closings]]?) villy ♦✎ 08:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've come across somewhere on meta a guideline for proposing the closure of a project, involving a waiting period and a vote or something. It will have to be discussed somewhere and this seems as good a place as any to draw people's attention to it. Please let's get rid of this aberration as soon as possible. There is no community building the wiki, it is overrun with spam, vandalism and joke articles, and it should never have been created in the first place. Its removal is long overdue. Delete. Trilobite 21:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Close project - I suggest a procedure: (1) lock wiki to all users except admins (2) add disclaimer stating that it is not part of Wikipedia (3) delete WikiSpam and other junk --Kernigh 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reject this request because this page is dedicated to discuss deletion of pages on meta hence this request is inappropriate. And if I recall correctly, there is already a meta page to discuss this matter. I read it on last May, and a discussion on meta:Babel had been moved to there. --Aphaia 13:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Close Project - However, I'm not sure that this is the best place or forum to close this project down. This is an issue that has been debated seemingly endlessly on Foundation-l and other places. I would rather have a vote like Wikiversity/Vote that is advertised on the Water Cooler pages of all of the major (especially English-speaking) projects for a wide concensus on this concept and gathering ideas. I have no doubt such a vote would be likely to shut it down, but having it as a Meta VfD is not going to get the input necessary, nor can admins on Meta likely do anything about this request either. This should be a full Wikimedia user input with formal comment by the Foundation board as well after the vote, as per New project policy#Closing of a project and specifically the clause about requiring a community poll on the topic. Where to place the content should be a seperate poll question (as in moving it to Wikipedia, Wikibooks, or even Wikisoure...or turning it into something like the Nostalga Wiki). --Roberth 17:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain project. My POV : maybe it was not such a good idea to open the project. Now, closing it, I don't know - on a symbolic level I would feel that like a spit on the victims and an award to the murderers. I admit it is not rational, it is about feelings. villy ♦✎ 21:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move project to wikicities. Donarreiskoffer 08:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close project or move to Wikicities. --Pmsyyz 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close project; it's not spitting on anyone. Memorializing has to evolve like anything else; if one form of memorial is no longer useful, then it's no longer a memorial. Chick Bowen 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sep11wiki is not inactive; their Special:Recentchanges shows that users are actively reverting spam and marking pages for deletion. In fact, most of the activity consists of reverting and marking pages for deletion. However, there were a few contributions of new contact, such as those I list below. --Kernigh 19:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Several edits of 9 January 2006, mostly minor adjustments, including one that added a few names to World Trade Center victims.
- To Personal experiences (only wiki edit of 10 January 2006): I was on my way to an interview at Morgan Stanley. I had stopped off at my school to burn my portfolio onto a CD for the art department. I was goofing off with some friends at the PC labs so I lost bit of time. Eventually I flew out of the lab and ran to the train. After 30 minutesv the subway ride over was suddenly stopped. The conductor announced what happened. A chill went down my spine and I almost broke down. If I hadn't goofed off at school, god knows what wouldve happened if i went in on time
  GabrielNYC
- To Phil Rosenweig (only wiki edit of 11 January 2006, except for one user that only created own user pages): Lauren Rosenzweig, his wife didn't give a damm about him and was only interested in how much money she was getting from her 9/11 "settlement" She kept all of the substantial settlement for herself and royally screwed the rest of the family. Phil remarked in December 2000 that his relationship with his wife existed "only" for the children. Some of us in the family cared deeply about Phil and miss him terribly each day.
- Thus, I conclude that this wiki is slightly active, but suffering from much spam and bad pages. However, the slight activity seems questionable to me. It might be legal to write pages about non-notable victims without permission from their families, but I still think that we should close the project. --Kernigh 19:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Your analysis suggests that complete inactivity would be preferable to what is going on there now. Chick Bowen 19:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close project, or move it to Wikicities or elsewhere. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close project, and move it to a non Wikimedia project if somebody wants it. - Taxman 19:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close project, or move to Wikicities or elsewhere. This project is essentially dead and does not recieve the attention and maintenance it deserves. Until we can find another organization to take it off our hands, it should be closed. Kaldari 21:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close project, it's run its course. Ashibaka 06:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong close project. This is absurd. Next I shall propose Holocaust In Memorial, Gaza Occupation In Memorial, Ruanda In Memorial, Guantanamo Bay In Memorial, Abu Ghraib In Memorial, among others, to have space for relatives of other Wikipedians. This definitely doesn't belong to any Wikipedia project unless we are going to create common criteria and mechanism to create such spinoff projects. --Elief 16:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]