- List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD (4th nomination))
no consensus to delete... more users in this discussion supported either keeping or merging information, and argued that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not apply. Just curious how then the closing admin used this as the only rationale to delete? HokieRNB (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The relevant AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination). Not yet have informed an opinion on this matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn closure. AfD may not be a vote, but 9 good faith editors arguing to keep is "no consensus". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn I'm not sure I want this article at all (having it smacks to me of systemic bias and recentism). That said, I strongly disagree with the close. The result was reasonably no consensus which can stick something to admin discretion if there's a compelling policy reason. However, the closer's logic, NOTMEMORIAL, was strongly disputed as being relevant in the AfD. A strong argument that that did not apply existed. Therefore this should be overturned. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant as I have merged it back into the parent article. But yeah, there was no consensus. -- Y not? 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er no. At multiple levels. If people want to merge a merge discussion should occur. Furthermore, that now requires us to undelete the stuff below the redirect to comply with the GFDL. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep redirect per Y. --Kbdank71 15:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to "no-consensus" There was clearly not any consensus, so the closer was merely voicing his opinion, not deciding on the basis of the discussion. DGG (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own deletion. AFD is not a vote count and I feel that the consensus, and policy, lean towards deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- support closing admin and deletion. The debate is not a vote; the "keep" arguments were not based in Wikipedia policies; the "delete" were. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn I do not see a consensus reached and believe the decision was premature. Ronnotel (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please clarify why you believe the decision was premature? Stifle (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that there had been three previous AfD's that were closed as Keep, with the latest one from Sept. 2007 as nearly unanimous, I would expect a decision that runs counter to that to have substantially more backing than was the case here. Why was no input sought from the previous closing admins? Ronnotel (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and keep - being an admin doesn't give you a "super !vote". Admins working AFD are there to judge consensus. Unless there is an overriding policy concern, vote stacking, etc, you should go with the consensus. The AFD did not consider this article to be a memorial and thus chose to keep it. Ignoring that decision is out of process. --B (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and commend the admin who understood that AFD is not a vote and that issues of privacy and WP:NOTMEMORIAL trump any mixed consensus. When it doubt, delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Warmly Endorse Deletion per my point above, namely WP:NOT#MEMORIAL enjoys plenty of consensus and that is what this is. Good close. Eusebeus (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion - WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The article needed to go, it was a memorial and it was simply not notable. I only counted 8 keeps, and many of them simply were not using Wikipedia policy as a basis for their arguments. For instance, one person argued that as victims of a terrorist attack they were notable, when this is specifically non-notable! We don't list, say, the victims of 9/11, and 9/11 was far, far more notable. The lack of notability of this list is very large. I myself nominated it for deletion ages ago and was shut down by memorializers, but now that a lot of them are gone, only a few are left. There is no reason to keep the list; these people weren't notable, their names aren't important. All that was important was that the event happened. Listing every person who died violently in the history of mankind is unreasonable and is not the purpose of Wikipedia. AFD is not a vote, as some people seem to believe, it is a means of showing conesnsus, and I think those who opposed either are too close to it or don't understand Wikipedia policy adequetely. This is not a knock on them, but the reality is that this has come up time and again, and time and again they present no argument other than claiming that it isn't a memorial without presenting any evidence thereof, or why this list of dead people is any more notable than, say, the list of 9/11 victims, or the list of people who died in the Battle of Gettysburg. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scholars and journalists legitimately research the victims of attacks, what gender was targetted, what race, what econcomic background, etc. Is there any correlation among these statistics regarding the victims? Were they random? Etc. Victims of massacres in reveal something about the incident and potentially baout the mass murderer's motives. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you can come up with a reason why this is different from a list of people who died in 9/11, then you don't have a leg to stand on. And our job is not to copy down the history of every single person on the face of the planet, which is exactly what youa re advocating. Where does it end? I've done research on my family members, that doesn't make them notable. Heck, one of my family members is the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy. Does she have a Wikipedia article? Heck no. Nor should she. She simply is not notable enough. These people are far, far less notable. Being killed violently does not make you notable; we simply do not have articles about every single murder victim, which is what you are advocating. People DO do research on the gender of murder victims, their race, the race/gender/religon/whatever of their killers, ect. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia should include information about every single person who has ever lived and died. I'm sorry, but you really don't have a case here. What is notable about these people? Nothing. Our purpose is to be an encyclopedia, not a list of everything. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Far less people were killed in this incident than 9/11, which makes for a much easier maintable article. We are not debating on individual articles; we are discussing a list; thus the comparison with the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy is apples and oranges. I see no compelling benefit from not having something that obviously is relevant to a good deal of good faith contributors here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In order: the number of victims is meaningless. You cannot make an argument on that basis; if it was notable, we'd have such an article. It isn't, though, fortunately, so we don't need such an article. Arguing it is difficult to maintain is not a valid argument; it is hard to protect Evolution from creationists, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover the topic. And the comparison with the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy is NOT apples and oranges; the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy is FAR more important and notable than these people. They get interviewed by NPR and occaisionally show up in newspaper articles. These people simply don't, and never did - their ONLY source of notability was dying, and dying does not make you notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent)
- The point is that neither are notable enough to warrant articles. You don't understand this. There is nothing notable about this list of names. They have no purpose and no encyclopedic value. You are not making a logical or coherent argument against it. And your argument that having a large group of people makes you more notable is outright long; as is pointed out specifically in the notability guidelines, lumping a bunch of non-notable things together doesn't make them notable. Again, I suggest you read the Wikipedia guidelines. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are notable enough to warrant an article on a paperless encyclopedia whose foundsr said we're after the sum of human knowledge and I see no reason otherwise. They have a purpose as many have outlined above and are encyclopedic. I see no logical argument otherwise. Determined, perhaps, but not an accurate interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - rendered moot by 1) redirect to Virginia Tech massacre is in place, and 2) the list of victims are prominently displayed in the target article. So if the deletion were overturned, an editor has already pre-empted it by being bold and merging it with the target article. B.Wind (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is circular reasoning. The list was broken out of that article in the first place due to space and legibility concerns will likely be pared back for the same reasons. Ronnotel (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a matter of deletion policy, people. This is simply an editorial decision. Nobody's writing bios of the NN victims - just a list of names. The only question is whether it should be a standalone list, or inside the main article, where it's more justifiable, but cluttersome. Somebody please close this stupid irrelevant DRV. -- Y not be working? 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as no consensus. Note that I am for deletion of the article, and stated so in the discussion. Yet the discussion clearly was at a no consensus state. Nabla (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion on a technicality the technicality being a clear lack of consensus to delete. I think there would be a consensus to MERGE the articles. A WP:BOLD merge and redirect might even go uncontested. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. I fail to see where lack of consensus is a technicality, since an AfD is about reaching a consensus. None was reached here--simply some stating keep, some stating merge, some stating delete, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and an admin endorsing one of those. I agree with davidwr that a merge may be appropriate, and stated such in the AfD. My concern is not with his statement, but with the way the AfD was interpreted by the Admin. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Result of original AfD read: "The result was Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. If you disagree, please go right ahead and open a DRV. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)" This reads like an intentional disregarding of consensus and statement of opinion by the closing admin, followed by a challenge (to do the DRV) Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus - Consensus just was not reached one way or the other and there was very strong contention on both sides. --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Victim Lists and Wikipedia
As far as I'm concerned, there are two issues here (and this relates to BOTH of the victim lists).
- Wikipedia is not a memorial.
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
Lists of victims invariably fall into the above categories. These are their only purposes. People talk about "giving an idea of the scale", but that is an attempt to elicit emotional response from the reader and is completely unacceptable under the NPOV policy. Numbers are fine, but a list of the names is meaningless to the public at large - John Doe is no one important, so the ONLY person that it is meaningful to is the person who is like "I knew that person", at which point it is a memorial. Now, some say researchers will look at these lists, and this is true - but many of these researchers are memorializing people via books, movies, ect. Some aren't, but at that point we're looking at a very small subpopulation of scholars, and they simply won't use Wikipedia for such purposes as they'll use other, more reliable resources. But I think more importantly, this second group is not worth considering because of the second bullet above - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and a list of victims is exactly that. Just because it is useful to SOMEONE doesn't mean we should have it; we have notability guidelines to exclude random junk, and this is random junk. These are no more notable than the assistant director of the Oregon Department of Energy, or of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack, or the dead at the Battle of Gettysburg. These are no more notable than a list of temperature readings at some specific buoy off the coast of Oregon.
Wikipedia considers the historical notability of subjects, and, frankly, these victim lists simply aren't historically notable. Indeed, they are far LESS notable than a list of soldiers who died in some important battle.
Unless you can show how these victim lists do not fall under the above categories, you simply cannot vote in good conscience and in accordance with Wikipedia policy to keep them. If I'm wrong, SHOW me, under Wikipedia policy, where I am wrong. But I don't think you can. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The director of the Department of Energy is ONE PERSON and thus not really comparable with a list of MULTIPLE PEOPLE. Those advocating to keep are not arguing to memorialize the victims and nor is a discriminate list inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Multiple editors arguing to keep means it's useful to more than just "someone." Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you read more about Wikipedia policy before you contribute to these discussions, as clearly you don't understand Wikipedia policy. The Neutral Point of View policy is essential to Wikipedia, as are the notability guidelines. I'm sorry, but you aren't making an argument on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Explain how, exactly, these lists are not what I have stated. You're just saying they aren't, but you aren't providing evidence to the contrary. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not seem to understand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. A straightforward list of victims of a historical incident is hardly not neutral. I do not see any evidence that there's a benefit to our project by not having this material. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making a fundamentally flawed argument; my argument is that there is no reason for it to be here in the first place, and you need to support its inclusion. It is either a memorial (and thus non-neutral) or it is the sort of information which falls under Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. Your argument of "researchers might need it!" falls under the latter. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I have presented multiple reasons for its inclusion, I see no reason for it not to be here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain this one to me like I'm an idiot - what is the difference between a list of victims, a list of television episodes, and a list of anything else? We split out the "list of xyz" from the main "xyz" article because including it in the main article would double its size. Wikipedia is not the place to publish my great grandmother's obituary, but if the death of one or more people makes world headlines for months and we have a featured article about their death, it makes sense to at least mention their names. I don't see how this is any different from having a list of TV episodes, a list of minor Southpark characters, a list of books someone wrote, a list of John McCain's political positions, etc. --B (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Lists should answer some of your questions. Lists like this one would only be appropriate if all of the names were links to articles; these people, however, are completely non-notable and thus do not have articles. Political Positions of John McCain is not a list in the sense of WP:Lists, but rather a "list" in the sense of being a summary of numerous political positions he holds. Notably, this isn't a simple list of worsds, but actual positions; they are in the form of prose and seperated and organized by subject. Lists of television episodes are the same - they are actually descriptions of the television episodes and what came to pass in them, essentially a number of brief plot summaries linked together by being a show under the same title, noteworthy enough for inclusion but too brief to warrant articles of their own. This list is none of those things. Their names are not notable, and give no useful information, nor is any information about the people noteworthy - more or less, the list has no purpose. It is just like if I were to list just the names of every Pokemon episode with no reason for it, except unlike Pokemon episodes, there is nothing TO note here. More or less, these people aren't noteworthy because the articles are about the killer and what happened, not about the victims - the victims are, in fact, entirely incidental, and all that matters are their numbers, not their names. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, expand the articles to have more than just names. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They simply aren't notable, hence the lack of details. There is nothing TO note, and the names themselves are meaningless. That's the entire POINT - these are not notable individuals, and nothing about them, including their names, is notable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are notable in the context of being victims of a notable crime which journalists and others are likely to research, see here and here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are non-notable. Notability guidelines exist for a reason, and these people certainly fail notability. Per the notability guidelines additionally, lumping together a lot of non-notable persons or things does not make them notable. Therefore, the list is, in and of itself, non-notable. Whether or not journalists may do research on them is irrelevant. They may do research on otherkin, or various webcomics which also fail notability. The guidelines specifically prohibit making articles speculatively that they might be notable in the future, and that is exactly what you are advocating, as well as throwing out all notability requirements. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Straight from the notability guidelines:
- Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.
- If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These massacres have been and will continue to be covered in scholarly articles and published books. I just did a search on Academic Search Complete and you have for example: "Chemenger among Virginia Tech victims," Chemical Engineer, May2007 Issue 791, p54-54, 1/8p; (AN 25430615). Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Chemical Engineer is a monthly magazine; thus, that was the FIRST edition of the magazine after the shooting. So your evidence actually contradicts your own point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It demonstrates coverage of a victim in a reliable source. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The key there being a victim. If you could find enough other reliable sources, you could build a WP:BLP-appropriate article on that person. But that does not make the victims as victims inherently notable. -- Kesh (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you have "List Of Virginia Tech Shooting Victims: Students And Faculty Who Died In Blacksburg Tragedy" on CBS News's website, which provides more than just a list of name and I would definitely consider CBS News a reliable source. Similar coverage appeared on MSNBC (see "Profiles of victims in Virginia Tech massacre: The slain include an award-winning professor and an Air Force cadet") and Time (see here), The New York Times (see here), as well as NPR (see here), thus considerable coverage of specifically the list of victims in major news outlets both online and print and even journal sources that turned up on Academic Search Complete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- not the right place for this discussion The question of whether such lists are suitable for the encyclopedia does need to be discussed, but Deletion Review is not the place to do it. And the decision on whether they are will be decided by the consensus of people at Wikipedia. Personally, I think we need a new discussion on the articles about the individual victims. One Event does not apply when the event is so notable that there are multiple sources over time about the people--sometimes in exceptional cases the individual identity of each of the victims can be encyclopedic content. At least VT was a sufficiently exceptional event. DGG (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been editing for a long time, but I've never done a RFC or a policy proposal before. I have read the RFC page and am unsure whether this would fall under that or something else. How would I go about doing one? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RFC
- Victim Lists
Wikipedia:Victim Lists is an attempt by me to create community consensus on the inappropriateness of lists of victims on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|