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. asilvering (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Egan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Apart from being there at 9/11 and dying, there is nothing notable about this person's career. Was a working nurse. No lasting notability, 25 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. More than meets GNG, plenty of coverage in reliable secondary sources (eg [1][2][3][4]). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with initial editor. Nothing really notable and after all these years nothing new has been added to change that. ContentEditman (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm sorry Nikkimaria, but did you clearly check the references you pasted here? Blogspot really? a PDF file?? we are talking about notability and not some random passive article or mentions. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did; did you? The PDF file is a publication of the Canadian national nursing association, and the Blogspot page is a publication of the Hull History Centre authored by the city archivist. Neither are "random"; both are substantial and reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: She wasn't even working in the area, just visiting. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Nikkimaria. Bearian (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily meets notability requirements; newspapers.com brings up articles about her in major Canadian newspapers even before her death. Not "working nurse"; was a leader in nursing in Nunavut and has a scholarship named for her. One might just wonder why you chose a queer non-American woman to nominate for deletion above the dozens of other victims who are actually less notable - but were American. --BasicBichette (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources in the article demonstrate that the subject passes the general notability criteria and is still notable 20 years on, given that CBC News ran an over 800 word article about her in 2021. She's considered notable by the Manitoba Historical Society [5]. She's considered notable by the Hull History Center - and the fact that their website is hosted on blogspot is completely immaterial. Whether or not nurses should be notable is immaterial. Whether or not she worked in the towers is immaterial. None of those are policy-based reasons for deletion. So, to summarise, the article subject is notable enough that historians from two countries consider her important enough to talk about, and she's from a part of Canadian history which is woefully underdeveloped in Wikipedia, and, most importantly, the sources are enough for us to build a comprehensive encyclopedia article. Which we have. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The content of the coverage by the historical societies and CBC profile might incline me towards believe that she's 1E, but that would require assuming that is only getting coverage for how she died. I don't see that this is necessarily the case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. There is significant coverage over at least 20 years, in 3 countries, and a memorial scholarship in her name which is still available 24 years later. There is definitely lasting notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2025 (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.