Apparently the edit history of these needs to be moved to the equivalent sep11.wiki page (which may have a subtly different name). In the case of Talk: pages, the page then needs to be deleted. In the case of normal entries, the entry needs to be redirected to the equivalent sep11.wiki page (probably already done). AFAIK, the Cunctator agrees with me on these particular entries, judging from his edit comments, etc.

• Talk:Peter Carroll
• Talk:Christine Lee Hanson
• Seima Aoyama
• Myra Joy Aronson
• Stephen V. Long
• Michael Asher
• Stephen Huczko
• Talk:Alfred Marchand
• Talk:Ruth Clifford McCourt
• Talk:Ruben Ornedo
• Talk:Berry Berenson
• Talk:Tara Creamer

Second batch:

• (now at )
• Neilie Casey
• Talk:William M. Feehan
• Talk:William Cashman

These two should probably be merged into an entry about the Carroll Foundation --The Cunctator

• Peter Carroll
• Michael Carroll

If you write an article on the foundation, then by all means mention these two people, and certainly these articles should be redirected there. Until then, I think the info should remain on the sep11.wiki. Martin

I think it's reasonable to keep the pilot entries on Wikipedia, even if they're currently stubs. Is that okay? --The Cunctator

• Tom McGuinness

I'd prefer to have a single article on all eight (co)pilots, I think. The pilots, as a group, are probably newsworthy, but I don't think that they're individually newsworthy. Perhaps at September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Pilots  ? Martin

I'll appeal to the argument that Wikipedia is not paper. There's essentially zero harm in there being separate entries on the pilots, and there are potential benefits. --The Cunctator

The other thing I was going to suggest was merging the potted biographies of each of the pilots in with the article on their flight. I guess you'd oppose that for the same reason?

I disagree that having the articles seperated does no harm. However, I'm not sure that it's worth getting into in detail here. See how it goes. Martin

It all somes down to a burden of proof question; it's hard to prove either harm or lack of harm, and moreover depends on one's definition of "harm" (I think you'd agree with me there). I lean towards including entries when the harm is questionable. Others lean toward deleting them. Tastes vary, it's a healthy competition. Even though I'm right. :) --The Cunctator