Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Those advocating outright deletion were very much in the minority. It should be noted that the fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial does not proclude covering those who died in notable events- merely that people should not be included merely as a memorial. The overwhelming consensus was that these people were collectively notable as a result of the circumstances of their deaths. That leaves the form in which the material should be presented. There was little agreement as to whether a merge was appropriate given the present size of Virginia Tech massacre with some vigorous opposition to any merge. This is no doubt an issue that should be revisited once some time has passed and the articles about the massacre have reached stable sizes, when a merge may become appropriate. As such I am closing the discussion as "keep" without prejudice to continuing or future discussion of a proposed merge. WjBscribe 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre[edit]

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP:NOT a memorial Flavourdan 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This is a monumentous event in US History. No, Wikipedia is not a memorial, but a massacre of 32 people in the US is notable in my opinion.
  • Keep This is a superflous argument full of straw arguments. You people fight as if there isn't enough space on Wiki. A list of people killed and info on them is factual information, notable, and worthy of record. This is a historic incident. A list of WTC victim should be compiled, it is a problem of gathering the information; Not having a list for WTC victims is a straw argument. Furthermore, this is not any death, accident, or murder; It has been labeled the deadliest school massacre in US history. I rest my case regarding notability. Romancer 19th April
  • Keep. There is List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre. Will you also ask to delete it? --Neo-Jay 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would once it's unprotected. CINEGroup 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's your real argument? Merge or Delete? Do you argue to delete the list from the main article or argue that the list is not long enough?? --Neo-Jay 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, wikipedia is not a memorial, it's very simple CINEGroup 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then you are arguing to completely remove the list form the main article, Virginia Tech massacre. I strongly oppose. A Wikipedia article about a crime usually include the names of the victims. It is not a war or disaster that causes thousands of victims. Please stop using September 11 to support your argument. That's completely different.--Neo-Jay 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) ][reply]
per Neo-Jay Chris 05:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "completely different", and other similar things (the Haditha killings, which, despite being a group of US marines going around slaughtering civilians, was NOT called a massacre) do not have lists of victims. Quite simply put, it is people trying to put inappropriate material into Wikipedia. Moreover, several victim lists are now up for being deleted because editors became aware of their existance and now they're being found and, likely, excised. Titanium Dragon 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you misunderstand the principle that Wikipedia is not a Memorial. It says: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Please read it carefully: subjects of ... articles must be notable. The subject of the list is a group of people. If the group is notable, i,e, "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the (group)", then the group can be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We do not need to prove that every single person in the list is notable. Please remember, WP:MEMORIAL is just a footnote of Wikipedia:Notability. Its goal is to exclude the non-notable content from Wikipedia. It is of course acceptable if editors establish articles to honor departed notable person, or notable group of persons. If you want to delete this list, you must prove that the group of people is not notable, i.e., has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the group. I don't think that you can do that. BTW, if the complete list of September 11 attacks or Haditha killings also has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject, then of course it can also be the subject of Wikipedia article. --Neo-Jay 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:INN. Corvus cornix 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content of this article has been included in Virginia Tech massacre. It is independent because it's too long to be only a section of the main article. If anyone wants to delete this article, he or she must prove either that the content should be completely removed from the main article, or that the content can be included in the main article but it is not too long. In my view, neither of the arguments can stand. --Neo-Jay 23:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I would say that even for that article, I would merge it into the main Columbine massacre. Now, granted, I have not read the list article. --AEMoreira042281 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per neo-jay Billtheking 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pbroks13 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Miaow Miaow 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not a poll. Please include a reason why you think this list should be kept or deleted. I believe the existence of this list helps take the strain off the massive amount of edits happening on Virginia Tech massacre and can help organize the details as they are made clear. Give it a week and see if it should then be remerged back into the main article. HokieRNB 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator made no coherent explanation of why the article violates any policy, so badgering the people who are saying it should be kept is extremely unfair. The nominator needs to include an explanation of why this specific page violates the policy. He has not done so. Linking to a policy by itself is not helpful. Johntex\talk 02:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HokieRNB explicitly said "Please include a reason why you think this list should be kept or deleted" (italics added for emphasis). He's not badgering the people who are saying this list should be kept. If he's badgering, he's badgering all those who are voting without explanation. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 13:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would please ask the "Keep" !voters to explain their reasons, as we cannot gather consensus on a subject if we don't know their reasoning behind their suggestions here. My delete vote is based on the fact that there is nothing notable about these people as individuals, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this is nothing but listcruft. Corvus cornix 22:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a tragedy now yes, but in reality, there are many horrible acts that happen in the world. Does the World Trade center page list all of it's victims? Does the War in Iraq page? No. Quite simply emeotions are high right now and people need to be able to put emotions on paper or in this case a computer, but this is NOT the right way to honor the dead.
    • Comment. This was not in any way done to honor the dead. This article was made to temporarily give information about the victims a better place to develop, with intentions to merge once the victims were all known. We list the Columbine Massacre victims, the Kent State victims, the January Events victims, etc., etc. They're an important part of the tragedies. We do not cover 9/11 or Iraq casualties in very large part because there are several thousand of them. --Kizor 09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Neo-Jay The System 3000 22:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above Wikipedia is not a memorial CINEGroup 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I guess given that the nomination was first made only a day after the incident, and that emotions are still high, will infulence some keep votes. Thunderwing 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - if the result of this Afd discussion is a "delete", would that indicate that the list should also be removed from the main article? HokieRNB 22:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main article. A quick look through massacre articles shows that this list would be conspicuous through it's absence. With respect to WP:INN, inclusion is not an indicator of notability but in this case, exclusion of this information would be conspicuous. Mallanox 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unencyclopedic. Nothing worth in an encyclopedic meaning. if I would be one of the victim I never wanted to be on such a "blacklist". Marcus Cyron 23:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats funny, Brittanica has lists of everyone who went down on the Titanic.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into main article. Most major killing sprees, killings, mass murders, bombings, etc... articles on wikipedia have a list of victims included. A simple list of names is not a memorialization. Pretty words about how so/so is missed IS. Please learn to differentiate between the two. Historians will want a record of the victims names. How many people would want to remove the list of victims from the Bath School disaster, or the Titanic? Dont editorialize, or memorialize. A factual list does not fail WP:NOT a memorial.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ASSuming that we are going to list now every single victim in every shooting and every terrorist attack, including every person ever murdered, and every soldier in iraq, even down to the old man who was murdered last week right? WHAT makes ANY murder victim notable? I think anyone would argue that ANY person you know PERSONALLY would be more notable than anyone you didn't know. MY dead mother is more notable then the people at VA Tech, why? Because I knew her. The people at the world trade centers are more noptable then the people at VA Tech, why? Because it was over 2500 of them. Ego makes notability. Let's list all the victims of the 1969 mcdonalds attack in which 20 people were killed. Let's list all the people the IRA has killed. Fook it, let's make Wikipedia a memorial which Jimbo has said, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MEMORIAL

I'm ASSuming thats easy enough for you ALL to understand now okay? CINEGroup 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop SHOUTING IN ALL CAPITALS. It does not make up for the fact that you have advanced no meritous reason for deletion. Johntex\talk 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the tone of CINEGroup's comment, it did have merit. He did cite policy. --Hemlock Martinis 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there is no need for an "independent article"--Pejman47 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


We believe that 32 dead is notable, but 2500 isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=world+trade+center+victims

NOTHING CINEGroup 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should create an article on the World Trade Center victims, not for memorial purposes, but to get a real sense of the scope of the catastrophe. A long list is much stronger image than a quick number and potentially helpful for people doing research, which after all is a major reason for the existence of encyclopedias. --164.107.223.217 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To create a strong, personal, emotional response in the reader? To have the reader stand in awe of the staggering amount of victims not by presenting the number of dead but by listing them and providing pictures? Last time I checked, a list of names like that is a memorial, and your intent is what memorials are supposed to do. Which is not what we're supposed to be doing. Cheeser1 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this has now gone very quiet after I posted right above. Makes you realize, wikipedia is not a memorial. This page was doing edits everyu few seconds for the last 2 hours. Nothing now in last 5 minutes? Or is someone off to rush and make a page for all the world trade center victims also? CINEGroup 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think people have been put off by the level of excitement shown on this page. There's no need to shout and please remember we're here to get a consensus not drown each other out with capital letters and what-have-you. Mallanox 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter what consensus is reached, Jimbo himself will kill the page as he has stated his memorial thoughts on wikipedia. He has deleted MANY a memorial page. CINEGroup 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there really is nothing to get worked up about. Mallanox 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CINEGroup, if I saw an assertion like that in an article I would remove it or tag it with [citation needed]. Do you have any sources to back up your claim that (a) Jimbo deletes memorial pages (b) there is any similarity whatsoever to a memorial page? Johntex\talk 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article on the massacre. -MrFizyx 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Keep since both articles are likely to grow and good arguments have made clear the need for the info. -MrFizyx 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or otherwise Merge. For those of you arguing that such a list exists for the Columbine Massacre - what about the hundreds of similar massacres that have occurred all over the world in the past 10 years? Simply because the number of victims is conveniently small and the media have made it conveniently simple for us to get the names does not mean that the subject should have an article. ugen64 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There is no information on this page that isn't already in the main article, and there's no reason for any more information that what is here. Several people on the talk page, including myself, have suggested sidebars ala the Columbine High School massacre and Bath school disaster. Natalie 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a event of historic proportion not like hundreds of similar massacres, because it recent it may not yet seem like it, not all the names have been released and as they do the coverage of each of the people who were victims will become greater in detail this isn't something run of the mill, let's not rush here ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 00:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as original article is too long now. Needs to be split. Rockstar (T/C) 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redundant to information in main article and per not a memorial. StuffOfInterest 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete. Not a memorial. Kaldari 01:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete. If the list is notable or not is not the question. It's whether it needs its own article - it doesn't. If it goes in the main page, that's where it goes. If it goes nowhere, it goes nowhere. It has no substance as its own article. It also isn't like we're wasting paper by making a list. If somebody doesn't want to read it, they can scroll down past it. How hard could that be? Cheeser1 01:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would say merge, but the the content is already in Virginia Tech massacre. -- Chuq (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Articles on long-ago events, such as Charles Whitman, contain the list of victims. For newer events, it is natural that we will have much more complete information. We will have plenty of information to annotate this list with information such as how far away they were thought to be when shot, whether they died immediately or later, etc. This could be valuable informaiton to future scholars and it will be too much information in the main article. A sub-page like this is the best way to go. Johntex\talk 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - newer articles (esp. current events) have changing content. Say there's a list being maintained separately, and maybe one in the article itself, and there is content that overlaps between the two articles pertaining to more than just a list of names. That's highly problematic. Further, we have to be reasonable: how much of what you just listed would even be encyclopedic? If one of the victims dies at a hospital, as opposed to en route, what encyclopedic merit does that have? What scholars study that? Cheeser1 02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to that is simply to not have the list in the main article, but only in the sub article. That makes it easy to keep the list up to date. The reason someone might care about when the victim dies is that it implies something about the accuracy and force of the assault. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johntex (talk • contribs) 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge Chensiyuan 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Patrick 02:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) This will be a fairly long list. Should be separate from the main article. Victims of all shootings are tragic, but these are notable. Look at the press coverage they get. It's not a memorial, it's important and notable information that would clutter and distract from the main article.[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Sahasrahla 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but merge - good grief, we don't need the main article to be this large. A simple list is all that the main article needs. I would lean on the side of having this article, but for crying out loud, think before you merge. --BigDT 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'keep"' - a list where the people who died and more info bout them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.246.66 (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per Alkavar and Johntex. A factual list of names is not a memorial. We have lots of factual listss of names, places, etc. It looks like firm precedent is set by other long standing articles to have a list of victims. This is not the World Trade Center or the Vietnam War or World War II with thousands or millions of names to list, so those examples are irrelevant. Force10 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm indifferent about the article, but it's worth noting that Wikipedia is not precedent-based, but rather consensus-based. -Halo 02:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - my point is that the list of victims does not seem at all out-of-place in long-standing articles. There was a rush to deletion here because emotions are raw. What we have done in other places is relevant to forming and maintaining consensus. As a matter of fact, most of our guidelines do not arrive by voting, they arrive by looking at what we commonly do from day to day and then capturing that into words. In this case, what we normally do is to keep a list of victims. Force10 02:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • *ugh..edit conflict* Keep (merge if you must) - Alright, I just wrote a long response, and I knew there'd be an edit conflict..but silly me forgot to c&p just in case..moving on. I think the article should stay. It's notable, and WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered". Well, the victims are notable, because they've been covered by press throughout the world, and are part of the most significiant school shooting in United States history. If you must, then merge, but I feel that it'd make the main article waay long, and that it's better off it's own seperate space. --theblueflamingoSquawk 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These people are not notable individually (for the most part), but they certainly are notable as a group. Further, while a list should certainly be maintained on the main article page, we should shift most of the bio information to this page.Chunky Rice 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --MZMcBride 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Keep the emotions out of your article writing. --Servant Saber 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Hemlock Martinis 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only because it will keep getting added back into the main article. I do beleive there is a chance it may be useful later... and even if it isn't, having this side article frees up clutter from the main article. It may not pass the ten year test but we can figure that out in a month when the recentensia move on to the next next big hyped news media event. Keep for now and we'll see where it goes. I agree that it should be concise and factual and not a soapy memorial of how we will all miss each student/professor. MPS 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Take a look at Bath School Disaster or École Polytechnique massacre. They're well done — particularly the former — and give us all of the information we need. The current article here has very little extra information, save for a batch of likely fair use violations that I notice are getting deleted at this very moment. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'd considering keeping, but I think the Bath School disaster listing is more appropriate yet remains respectable. --Ataricodfish 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the media are discussing the details of their lives, displaying their pictures, etc. This makes this info notable. There are too many WTC victims (and for that matter, victims of OK City, poverty, AIDS...) for them to receive such individual fame & examination and thus easily-verifiable info. This is (or will soon be) high-quality info tracked down by reputable news organizations. It stays. Even apart from its value (or not) as a memorial, the info is eminently WP-worthy, but it can't possibly fit on the main article. --zenohockey 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It's not a memmorial if you include the killer himself. He counts as one of the casualties. The article is informative. Malamockq 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm changing my vote to delete because it's obvious that the article is turning into a memmorial, which is NOT allowed. Delete it as per that reason. A place of mourning the victims is not appropriate for wikipedia. Malamockq 00:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a reasonable way of presenting this information per summary style, with a compact bulleted list in the main article and more detailed descriptions here. It's not just an indiscriminate list, or a memorial as it puts all the victims in context, and adds to the encyclopedic coverage of the massacre. Krimpet (talk/review) 04:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment You know, just because these people are dead does not make this article a memorial. Let's just stick to notability, okay?Chunky Rice 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think that this is a memorial. A memorial would call them victims rather than casualties. At the moment, Wikipedia's list is easiest to find and most complete, and for those who may be distant friends needing to check, this should stay up. As a page of information and reference. Which is exactly what Wikipedia IS supposed to be. newsong 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't even know why we're discussing this. The list does not violate any policies. The list is not a memorial, it's funny how people see things. It's a list of the victims with mini-bios of the victims and injured. Having such information in the massacre article won't fit correctly, and most of the victims were too young to have done much in their lifetimes that might fill a per person article. I'm assuming bad faith for the request of deletion. --Witchinghour 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial. The information on this page is on the main Massacre article. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MEMORIAL. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That's right, Wikipedia is not a memorial. But this page is merely informational, so there is no need for deletion. Chris 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So any mention of the victims would constitute a memorial, that's absurd. Is this page a memorial? --Witchinghour 05:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not know if the public will find them individually notable enough that there will be articles on each of them in multiple sources; if there is such public notice then there will be appropriately WP articles in each. But as the mere list this is surely justified. I cannot understand the rush to deletion. The very need to have the discussion of it disgraces us all. DGG 05:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Keep This is important information of the deadlist shooting in the United States. Keep this Yearsago 12:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated above. FreshFlyFamous 06:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. "Wikipedia is not a memorial" doesn't mean "Wikipedia has no any kind of information at all about dead people" or "Wikipedia has no any kind of information at all about people who died in remarkable circumstances". I'd pull the Not a Memorial Card out in cases of, say, plane crash or other disaster that claims hundreds of victims and you'd be making an article for each and every one of these people, but this list is easily of manageable size and we're not making articles for the individual victims. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As of right now, there is remarkably little difference between this page and the list of victims on the article's main page. Where do we see this going in the future if it doesn't get merged? Rockstar (T/C) 07:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge completely and without cutting anything back into the article on the massacre. It is a very notable event and encyclopedic information on a massacre includes the names of people killed. Awartha 07:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Real96 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - article contains no substantive content which can't be included in the Virginia Tech massacre main article. QmunkE 09:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the list is hardly informative in its own. But without its absence, the main article will feel lacking. So merge there. Plus thirty-odd names wont make the length go out of proportion - it can be easily stated in a two ot three column format to save space. --soum (0_o) 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the names and Delete the biographies - Unlike (virtually) everyone else, I don't see any reason for keeping the individual names as a separate list. I don't agree with the delete arguments based on WP:MEMORIAL, but "things where a lot of people die at once" happen every day, and we don't list every passenger on a crashed plane, every casualty of a battle etc. IMO the article on Dunblane massacre is pretty much a perfect example of how this sort of thing ought to be handled. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into parent article. Noclip 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as staded above. It's good to have sub-pages --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What purpose does naming each victim serve to people that have never heard those names before (lack of notability) but want to know what happened during the shootings? Why isn't a number enough (or maybe general information about the average age of the victims as well)? (Antonio.sierra 13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge with main article. WP not a memorial, at least for seperate pages. --Daysleeper47 13:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the parent article. This is relevant information, but does not merit a separate page. Mike Helms 13:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unless this article is going to be greatly expanded, it can fit entirely and nicely inside the main article. _selfworm_ ( Give me a piece of your mind · Userboxes · Contribs )_ 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - if this article provided quite a bit more information on the victims than the listing already in the main article, then I'd say keep. However, as it stands, it should be merged. Jauerback 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list of victims, when that list is not excessively long and it is well referenced, does not violate WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. See a recent discussion at WT:NOT and the related AFD regarding the list of Columbine victims. YechielMan 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is anyone advocating to keep this article proposing that a list about these people, beyond their names as a list of victims, is somehow encyclopedic? Besides victims who may be related to the circumstances of the shooting (something that will be documented sufficiently in that article), if any of these people's lives merit documentation, they will have their own articles. If they don't, then why should we document their lives here? I don't see how the relevant list of names (and even maybe ages and positions at the university) cannot simply be merged into the main article, providing sufficient (if not more than enough) information about these people, as far as information meriting encyclopedic consideration goes. As soon as we put the list in its own article and start writing pseudo-biographies and posting pictures of people, none of which merits encyclopedic consideration, we are creating a memorial. That's what a memorial is. As I've mentioned, even a list of names, when constructed in a particular fashion or context, is a memorial (see Vietnam Veterans Memorial). Cheeser1 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The list is appropriate, it is not a memorial, its a historical fact. Matthew 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergify - List is interesting and relevant, but not as a page in its own right. Information should be kept in the same place for readability. Jdcooper 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Keep for now, merge back in when all the shit gets taken out of the main article, which can happen when this event outlasts people's short-term memory (next week sometime). Jdcooper 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The parent article, Virginia Tech massacre, is now large enough that it could make sense to have the victims names split off of the main article. I would consider dropping my earlier Delete !vote if a couple of things changed. First, the list of names should come completely out of the main article. Only a short synopsis of where the deaths occured and a count of students vs faculty should be in the parent article. Next, the article under discussion should be renamed to Victims of the Virginia Tech massacre as it is more than a list and contains information on the circumstances of how the victims were where they happened to be. Fortunately, the list article has gone through some improvment during this discussion as a lot of the memorial (per WP:MEMORIAL) content has been removed and it is more fact based now. --StuffOfInterest 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The main article is, right now, 63 kilobytes too long. Merging will exacerbate the problem. --Wordbuilder 15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it's pretty difficult to convince people that we should remove the list from the main article because of this page when this page was put up for AFD almost immediately.Chunky Rice 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the time this article was put on AfD it was almost a total clone of the section from the parent article. Even if the list is removed from the parent, it will be merged back in should this article be removed. --StuffOfInterest 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Pupster21 Talk To Me 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Where were all these keep votes when List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm (250+ deaths) was deleted repeatedly, and when List of General Slocum victims (1000+ victims) was deleted??? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 16:06Z
    • Perhaps those events (as tragic as they were) were not as fresh in people's minds and their articles were not getting as much attention. --Wordbuilder 16:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So clearly if this article is kept and/or the Columbine one is kept, I should be able to recreate the other one(s). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 16:28Z
I support your recreating of that list as well as I'm sure it's useful to somebody, say at least people researching disasters and as encyclopedias are primarily useful research tools that catalog the knowledge of we humans, the more factual information, the merrier and so yes, if I you recreate that, you have my strong support. --24.154.173.243 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. I'm not swayed by the "Wikipedia is not a memorial" argument: the list of fatalities is historical, informative, and pertinent to the main article; nor are there individual articles being created for each of the fatalities, but only for those (like many of the faculty members) who attained notability otherwise, & the killer himself. --Yksin 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now I think it should be simply kept. The main article is too large already for a merge; all victim info there should be deleted except for a link directing to this article. --Yksin 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — this is a factual and noteworthy list with good references relating to a high-profile event, the most serious of its kind in US history. — Jonathan Bowen 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. The "Wikipedia is not a memorial" has nothing to do with this article. This is factual, well-sourced information. --musicpvm 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once again, the inclusionist in me comes out. Wikipedia's notability and other guidelines for inclusion are getting out of control. This information should exist on Wikipedia. The main article on the massacre is already too long and if this article was merged back into it, it would be even longer. We should make exceptions when it comes to some articles. I guarantee that at some point, somebody will come to Wikipedia looking for a list of victims and that is what we should worry about. "The sum of all human knowledge." Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? It bothers me when well written, well sourced articles (this one is definitely well sourced and it hasn't even had time to develop yet and its a list so the prose gets a pass) are deleted because they failed Wikipedia's strict notability policies or one of its numerous guidelines. Wikipedia is not a memorial, but this article isn't a memorial. It is a list of people that died in the attack and information on where they were when it happened. At the very least, this article should be allowed to develop naturally after the initial publicity of the attack has died down. But, this is valuable information that cannot be remerged into the main article due to its length. But it shouldn't be deleted. ↔NMajdan•talk 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep What's the big deal? It's a subpage of Virginia Tech massacre which has gotten too big? JeffBurdges 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops, all the information is still in the main article. So I vote to postpone the deletion vote for one month or so , i.e. keep but renominate after at least one month. JeffBurdges 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Probably best to be merged.12.96.46.209 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as it is America's deadliest mass shooting, I think it is important to have a detailed list of the victims. GiantSnowman 18:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe deadliest shooting spree by one individual, not the deadliest mass shooting by a long shot. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-18 18:26Z
  • Keep --DrugoNOT 18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ckessler 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is one of the most deadly civilian shooting in US history. It tells about the victims and is accurate. I say fix up the article and make it more detailed. Mrld 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lists of victims are not notable and are not encyclopedic. First off, the list of names isn't notable - if a person isn't important enough to be mentioned in the article, and don't have an article themselves, they shouldn't be in some list. Second, its completely unreasonable - look at 9/11. It would be farcical to list all the victims of those attacks. This is not the point of Wikipedia. I suspect this will come up again in a month when no one cares anymore. Using other examples is bad, because they shouldn't be there either. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. Titanium Dragon 18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep Around For the love of God, lists of major histoical events ARE encyclopedic. This list is hardly unwieldly and I guarantee LOTS of Wikipedia's readers are looking at this. So why deny people a resource that they're interested in? Y'all shouldn't be so quick to delete! --172.166.196.253 19:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren't. Just because people come looking for it doesn't mean we should have it; if it isn't notable (like this), violates wikipedia policy (like this), ect. Seriously, there are plenty of other places to get this information. In any event, its already in the main article, so its not like it isn't available. Please make arguments on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Titanium Dragon 19:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that you're also agitating to remove the list from the main article.Chunky Rice 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that is an issue to take up there, not here. It is entirely irrelevant in this discussion. If it belongs in the main article or nowhere, it belongs in the main article or nowhere, not in an article that doesn't merit its own entry in Wikipedia. Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - Keep for all the reasons mentioned by others, merge because the list is short enough to fit into the main article. Under no circumstances should it be deleted. In addition, I don't understand why people are being such hardline rule-pushers. In what way does it hurt the integrity of Wikipedia to have this article? Does it cause bandwidth problems? Is it such a NO-NO that it does not adhere to every single guideline of Wikipedia? Don't be ridiculous. There is all kinds of extraneous information on this site, some of which is deleted, some of which isn't. In NEITHER case does the site suffer for it. Stop being such robots and show some compassion. Godheval 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not compassionate; it is supposed to comply with its guidelines, be NPOV, be well-written, and be encylopedic. An encyclopedia would not include junk like this, because it simply isn't notable. In a year when someone looks this up, they aren't going to be looking for the list of victims names. It simply is not notable in an encyclopedia. Titanium Dragon 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By this argument, no mention should be ever be made of the name of any victim of any murderer unless that victim was "notable" enough to merit an article of his or her own. (This is of coures assuming that the murderer was him/herself "notable" enough to merit an article.) --Yksin 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not addressing "Wikipedia", as it is not an actual entity. I was addressing the people involved in maintaining it. You have managed to answer ZERO of my questions with regards to how keeping the article hurts the site. If articles being "well-written" is a rule on the site, then you've got bigger problems than whether or not to delete this article. Over 50% of the articles here have glaringly poor writing in them. Get to work. =) Godheval 19:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hurts the site because it is unencyclopedic and we have certain standards. NPOV is one of them, notability is another, ect. Basically, by complying with those guidelines we make Wikipedia reputable, a better source of information, ect. Including junk weakens all that. We have rules for a reason. Your argument holds no water because there are specific rules for Wikipedia which we follow for a reason. Titanium Dragon 20:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list is in the main article, and every time something like this occurs are we going to have list of victims? It's a tragedy to be sure, but deleting this particular article is in keeping with past precedent here. Carlossuarez46 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reduce this section in the main article to a summary--maybe just the ones who are already in a WikiPedia article as a teaser to this article. --Lmcelhiney 20:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Put it in the main article, that would be more appropriate, a separate article like that is totally not necessary. Just a listing in that article is enough as it is not a memorial.--JForget 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - please don't merge, please keep as a separate article --Scanlan 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per Scanlan. WillSWC 20:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unless there's a lot more info about each individual victim. D4S 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is scattered information on this page and several others. This information should be merged to create a central place but without losing information, such as ages and hometowns of victims.

  • KEEP Keep this. Why would you delete it? More knowledge the better.
That is not true. Not every bit of data can be considered knowledge, nor can every bit of knowledge be considered encyclopedic. Cheeser1
  • Can someone explain why this is a memorial? Is it possible for any article containing the names of the dead not to be considered a memorial? lots of issues | leave me a message 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has to have encyclopedic merit in its own right (as opposed to as a part of the article about the event in question). Else it's a memorial. That question is further addressed by some others who've already spoken (above). Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Obviously of great interest to many people. 170.252.11.11 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not a reason necessarily for something to be on Wikipedia. Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no reason to necessarily need a list for extra information about the victims. Right underneath an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which was already cited, is another important policy: Notability is not inherited. A list of victims may be encyclopedic to the article, but pseudo-biographies and pictures of all the victims, unless established to be important and encyclopedic with regard to the shooting simply do not merit being in Wikipedia, certainly not developed as a part of their own article/list. Cheeser1 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I've already registered my "vote"). Most of the policy references here, such as those you mention, are talking about "notability" (a problematic concept in & of itself, but I won't get into that here) in terms of independent articles. For example, just because radio station KXYZ is notable enough to merit its own article, doesn't mean "Morning program thus'n'such" that airs on radio staion KXYZ is notable enough to merit its own article.
Which makes sense, sure. Yet, as I mentioned in a comment above, many people seem to be taking the whole "notability" criteria to mean that if a given fact doesn't merit its own article, it shouldn't be mentioned. Hence, we shouldn't list the names of Virginia Tech shooting victims -- oh except maybe a couple of the professors who had achieved independent notability -- because they're not "notable" on their own. In the article on Cho, we shouldn't mention that Cho kept a pet fish because the pet fish isn't "notable" -- even though the article is ostensibly a biography, & the fact Cho kept fish is a biographical fact about him.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion about "notability" in this regard. But the fact is that always, always, what is notable is only notable because of its context. Nothing in this article, the main article, the Cho article, or on Wikipedia as a whole, has any notability outside of how it related to other people/places/things/events.
It's completely obvious to me that the names of Cho's victims are notable within the context of the main article just as much as the name of JFK's assassin is notable in a bio of him, or the names of Jack the Ripper's victims are notable in a story about Jack the Ripper. The question for me is not one of "are these names pertinent or not" but whether they should be merged with the main article or not. Arguing against the merge is that the article is already so large, & WP policy seems to be "if the article gets too large, break it up into subsidiary articles." But the intent of that seems to be in most cases that subsidiary articles are more-or-less considered part of the main article by reference. The only reason this article should be separate is because of that size consideration. But if the main article somehow magically shrinks inside, then yeah, of course it ought to be merged. Until then, its a keeper. --Yksin 22:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Amend: Fish reference was apparently some other editor's misread of an article about Cho. I can find no media reference to it. --Yksin 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That's not the point. People's hometowns and college majors are not notable (or at least, notability has been in no way established). A list of victims is perhaps encyclopedic, but mini-biographies of each and every one are not. If a person merits entry, s/he will have one and we can use a wikilink in the list of names to indicate such. If a person does not, then there is no need for biographical information outside the scope of the encyclopedic event (name, role in the event, etc). If the only thing notable about them is that they were killed in the attack, then information about them in wikipedia should pertain only to the attack. A list of names can easily and cleanly be merged into the article (as demonstrated by a number of examples). There is simply no reason not to merge. Cheeser1 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, getting all mixed up about what "notability" means. By this argument, we should exclude the birthplaces, hometowns, educational affiliations, etc. of every other human being mentioned on Wikipedia. To me, the inclusion of such basic data vastly improves its encyclopedic value, while refraining from becoming a memorial complete with flowers & personal remembrances by each person's friends and family. --Yksin
I have not mixed up any notability, don't generate an absurd strawman and tell me how silly I must be. The fact is, they don't pass WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned, and are only notable in their connection to this particular happening. As such, they don't merit their own article(s) or their own biography(ies). People whose birthplace, background, etc may be notable (e.g. the shooter) ought to have these things expounded, and mentioning each victim's age or status (student, professor, etc) may be noteworthy with regard to the event, but something like "computer science major from Oklahoma" is irrelevant and not notable, however much respect I might have for the dead. And please don't forget that just because I read policy differently than you doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the burgeoning size of the main article is a pretty good reason.Chunky Rice 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although someone has very recently messed up the placement of the list, in Bath School disaster there is a list of victims that is well integrated into a long article. The magic of computers is that you can simply scroll down a page (or even skip all the way down, using a link), rendering "long" articles not so long, assuming we keep them organized - which we are capable of doing. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we keep this, then what about other massacres and disasters? Sad to say, but this event is no different from other similar events except for the number of casualties and even that is arguable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. It might be a good idea to put up a new Wiki for memorials.— JyriL talk 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable people who pass WP:BIO and per Jyril we should keep all other lists as well to prevent those parent articles from getting too long as well. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Vital info is found in the article that's not in the main article. It is well sourced, and fairly NPOV. If you do decide to delete it, please merge ALL info into the article, as it does provide some important vital info. If you do merge, I suggest you redirect rather than delete. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?) 22:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to main article or, if there's enough information there already, delete; the list should be part of the main article, rather than a breakout like this. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NOT#PAPER. This is an encyclopaedic topic that is noteworthy and within the scope of Wikipedia. Matthew 23:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Expand to more than a list and rename to Victims of the Virginia Tech massacre or merge back into Virginia Tech massacre. The parent article is not long enough to require breaking out a simple list as a separate article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepNotable as a group. Merging would clutter up the main page needlessly. TSim 01:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, too detailed to be in the main article. --Vsion 01:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate article is needed. --Maestro25 01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per TSim and Vsion. However, I agree with Alkivar's view that we should not memorialize shooting victims on Wikipedia. It's fine to have names and quick summaries about them, but not "It is sad that this person died, they were so great"... that is better left for memorial websites/groups than encyclopedias. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per previous statements. However if if it is only a bare bones list then delete. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 02:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all relevant info already on the main article. - BanyanTree 02:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NOT doesn't say anything about "Not a memorial". Therefore, nominator's reasons are not based on any policy. Please send me a message on my talk page if "Not a memorial" is indeed a policy.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MEMORIAL. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The stuff in WP:NOT about memorials says, quote, "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The 32 victims are notable for having been the victims of the largest single-shooter mass shooting in U.S. history. That they were coincidentally fondly remembered by their friends/family does not detract from that. Hence, their "notability." --Yksin 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, it seems they fail anyway. They are notable as a group but most are not individually. Rockstar (T/C) 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! You got it! That's why they're in this article as a group instead of all with their own individual articles. Note also the WP:NOTE specifically says, "Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by Wikipedia's guidelines on the reliability of sources and trivia" (emphasis added). So this continual referencing of WP:NOTE is inappropriate when used to argue for the exclusion of the names of the individual victims from this article, because the topic of this article is all the victims of this massacre as a group, not any one of them as an individual. Nobody is arguing here that each of them is notable enough to warrant their own article -- because in that case yes, WP:NOTE applies. --Yksin 05:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would clutter up the main article and is useful information a lot of people will want. Kakuuunowazawai 04:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has 3 edits, 2 to this page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-20 13:27Z
  • Keep, all opposing claim Wikipedia is not a memorial, but fail to describe how the list is one. It is simply a list of those killed, and does not memorilize them. -Phoenix 04:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Vietnam Veterans Memorial. If a list is unnecessary or constructed in a particular manner, it surely does serve as a memorial. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You are correct that Wikipedia is not a memorial and this article prevents the need to make an article for each victim. This article serves as an extension of its parent article, Virginia Tech massacre, which would otherwise make that page long and confusing (as per WP:LENGTH and WP:SS). Joneboi 05:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Use common sense and stop tearing down the hard work of others just to stroke your own ego. -Lapinmies 06:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Virginia Tech massacre. The victims do not deserve to have their own article, but they should at least be recognized. And honestly- the AfD was poorly thought of and poorly timed, considering the number of people this article will attract and the fact that the event just happened over two days ago and feelings are still raw from this event. Sr13 (T|C) 08:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Serves no useful purpose, other than being a memorial, seeing that the complete list already exists at Virginia Tech massacre#Victims. Ohconfucius 08:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep consensus appears to be to merge, at least to keep short summary bios. I find the tone set by some here, in their zealous quest to delete, to be ignorant and rather childish. -Stevertigo 08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or if the main article is too long, Keep. A list of those who died in incidents like this is certainly encyclopaedic and is something that people reading the article would want to see. It is not necessary to have biogrphical details of the dead beyond basic notes like age, status (i.e. student, professor etc.) and any information pertinent to the incident (i.e. where or when the died), and so the article could be easily merged into the main article as a simple text list, as I believe already exists there. It should only remain as a seperate article if the main page is too long and needs to be split.--Jackyd101 09:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a difference between a memorial and a concise factual list. I oppose merging into the article Virginia Tech massacre solely on the grounds of length. If Virginia Tech massacre can be shortened then a merge would be in order. Until then, Keep. Crunch 11:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP High School Students will need this information in the future --Corcoranp 13:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Are you fucking kidding me? This is actual honest-to-God useful information. I swear, some of you exclusionists make me laugh sometimes. - Stick Fig 15:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This reads like a obituary. There is no information here that should not be in the main article. Remember whether the main article is bulky or not, Wikipedia is not a place for lists of dead people! --Jimmi Hugh 16:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (as for example Crunch, JohnnyBGood, Neo-Jay) --Cinik 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

  • Strong Keep There is a list for Columbine, and this, as of now, being the worst mass shooting in U.S. history - yes - the victims deserve an article.
The fact that there is a list does not justify having one here. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact that the other list is useful is significant in showing why this list will be useful as well. Calling it crap doesn't strengthen your argument. Your argument still is not persuasive. Johntex\talk 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but we're not talking about my argument here (you want to talk about that, comment where I stated my case). I'm just pointing out that the (unsigned) strong keep and that person's argument were given for reasons that are 100% against policy. And I didn't call anything crap, that's just an interwiki link that's convenient and easy to remember. You do little by nitpicking and pretending that this constitutes my argument as opposed to the obvious and clearly appropriate rebuttal of a statement that disagrees completely with wikipolicy. If you don't like it, then you'll just have to deal with it - it's policy, clear and simple, even if it is linked as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (if that bothers you so much, get the redirect removed). Maybe you're an admin, but I'm not afraid to tell you when you're way off base, buddy. Cheeser1 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"" Columbine is here too, sometimes the Wiki rules and their "enforcers" are too strict! It is a very notable event! Desertson 12:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Just as important as the killer or the event itself. (Djungelurban 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If you're going to call people and their policy-citing arguments ridiculous, please try to cite policy in your argument, as I might remind everyone that this is not a vote, but a deliberation on policy. Cheeser1 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deliberation on policy. This is a deliberation on how to make the encyclopedia as good an useful source on this topic as possible. These concepts are similar but very definitely not the same. --Kizor 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep I agree with all of the above about keeping this very important reference source. That this is even an issue is ridiculous.Rockules318 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This information is already nicely fit into Virginia Tech massacre. This page is not needed. └Jared┘┌talk┐  12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is not a memorial and the largest massacre in modern US history. Such a list will be useful. This is a larger massacre than Columbine High School and such a list is somewhat useful. Such a list will not need articles for each and every victim. The list on the main article should be removed and summarised into a paragraph in prose (mainly not about the victims names please). Terence 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BUT merge: Yes, this might be a future reference use in the future, but again, move it to the main article. --AEMoreira042281 13:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per MiFeinberg Cornell Rockey 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as tragic as this is, hundreds of people die by violence every day. Their individual names are not encyclopedic. -Docg 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or merge Yes hundreds do die, but this is a notable massacre and the names are short and should be included, they are the people who made up this tragedy. Epson291 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone - Victim lists are the sort of things that probably don't make much sense in an encyclopaedia, unless the victims themselves were notable, as the inclusion of some lists of people (for example in Western tragedies) might be seen as an NPOV issue as I doubt we include, or will include, lists of people executed in China or who die in coal mine collapses. However, it is very understandable that emotions are running high. Why not wait a week and see what people think when this is not the number one issue on the news? Tompagenet 14:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Remove most victim info from the main article, though, unless it is pertinent. --Wordbuilder 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep this article. It is a matter of historical information and fact. Padishah5000 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Being a "matter of historical information and fact" isn't grounds to keep a Wikipedia article. The fact is, all these people could easily be named within the main Virginia Tech massacre article without crowding it with a little bit of smart editing. Jeff Silvers 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point. I think I should consider it. I might change my opinion in afew hours. Thank you for raising that point. Padishah5000 17:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The main article is already too big. What should be removed from it in order to include the names of the victims? --Wordbuilder 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there's room on this site for individual Duck Tales episodes, there's room for information on the victims of the worst school shooting in US history. Evan Waters 11:52, 20 April 2007
  • Comment. As the main article has evolved & grown too large for one article, editors have now completely removed victim information from the main article except for a very brief summary paragraph & incidental mention of some victims in the narrative otherwise. I.e., this list article is now the only page listing all victims. --Yksin 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly a notable subject that is interesting to very large numbers of people. Obvious keep.
  • Strong keep per Neo-Jay. Fullmetal2887 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is historical information that should be public knowledge. Raphael 18:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Regarding the last three comments. Deletion of this article has nothing todo with removing the information from wikipedia. The names of all these people could easily be intergrated into the main article with little expanson of it's size. Please do not feel this is an attempt to hide information or not make it public knowledge... the information will be there, just not this obituary! --Jimmi Hugh 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but the editors of the main article are trying to break off parts of it into sub-pages in order to keep the length under control. Forcing a merger back into it seems counter productive, to me.Chunky Rice 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course i am aware... unlike the comments along the lines of "I like this article, it is ueful information people should know" i actually read all the articles and only make comments on policy. Hence the reason i made the coment that it would be simple to intergrate this information into the main article and maintain it's size with a little clean up to the main article. Also, even if this were not the case (as i am looking for suitable splittable topics), Wikipedia is still not a a place for Obituaries and therefore this is not a good candidate for seperation. --Jimmi Hugh 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. No need to get snippy.Chunky Rice 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aplogies... just trying to turn the discussion towards policy so that we can all have a discussion about it's inclusion based upon the rules. --Jimmi Hugh 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all about policy. I don't like WP:NOT, though, because it's derivative of more fundamental policies, like WP:N, WP:ATT or WP:OR. As such, it expresses those policies as examples, but does not supercede those fundamentals. So, here the fundamental issue is WP:N. In my opinion, the way in which these people died and the coverage that it has received confers notability. It's not indiscriminate. When the vast majority of people die, they get an obit. Maybe a mention in the local paper. These people are the subject of several non-trivial articles from secondary reliable sources. I honestly don't see the argument against it, other than the WP:MEMORIAL bit and I already explained why going to the root policy is superior that that derivative one. Chunky Rice 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like it or not, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Now, personally, I disagree with the reasoning behind that part of WP:NOT, but it is currently policy and that policy is blocking the inclusion of many other lists of victims, e.g., Columbine, 911, or the Omagh bombing (where I first learned of the policy). So until that policy is changed, it has to go. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. An external link to third-party news source from the main article (mentioning the details of victims) would suffice. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT:"Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered" (my enormous emphasis) I rest my case at Speedy keep. --GunnarRene 19:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all individuals are notable enough for separate articles, but this list has a notable subject and they can be mentioned within it. --GunnarRene 19:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How do your reasons lead to the end of speedy keep via the criteria for speedy keep? Rockstar (T/C) 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't. Thank for reminding me. --GunnarRene 23:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enormous amounts of media coverage has been focused on every one of the victims, enough for at least a stub on each. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. America is justifiably outraged by the killings, and emotions do run high, but we are talking about a bunch of people here most of whom were not notable before their deaths, and suddenly, the press is chasing every detail, however trivial, about the lives of same, provoked directly by the massacre. If that's not memorial, I don't know what is..... Ohconfucius 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge
  • Delete/Merge, I agree with all saying that it is not worth its own independent article, it should be merged if not deleted entirely. Authors can elaborate on each victim then. Tkd 2000 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not merge - I think this article was spawned due to the size the main article crept to. I think this is alrge enough to have a list, but too large to be included in the main article. I think it is important as encylopedic coverage of this article, however as just a list int he article is a detriment to the quality of the main article. Hence Why I belive it was split into this article and why I believe it should stay. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs to be split off from main article for size and administrative reasons. Realkyhick 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not Merge - The article is not a "memorial", the nominator has put up a straw man and not proven it is a memorial, it is a personal opinion. The article is a "List of.." of basic factual information similar to what is found on news sites all over the country. How else are victims to be listed on Wikipedia? The main article is too long for this one, it is a logical split. -- Stbalbach 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, - if the list of people is important to the article, then im not sure that making it a sub article automatically turns it into an obituary. it seems that an obit stands on its own, where this information is only relevant because the event is notable. seems this is why tangent articles are created - to keep down main article size. the_undertow talk 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously because it's a list of the victims! Effer 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge it to the article. It would avoid pointless page shuffling. Skillz187 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think merge works anymore (though it was what I originally wanted), considering the original page is already at 60kb and needs to be broken up anyway. Rockstar (T/C) 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete the article. There's already a section about Victims in the main article, why have a separate one? Aquatics 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was recently readded to the article after being long-deleted - probably due to fear that the fact it was split to here and then AFDed -Halo 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the main article is too long to merge this information back into it. We can revisit this in a few weeks after everything has calmed down and we've started to gain perspective to judge if this is notable or if the main article can be shortened enough to incorporate this material. --ElKevbo 23:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But Add the shooter-otherwise its a memorial Brett 23:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How exactly does that stop it being a memorial? I am sure his family are just as upset about his death given no one did anything to help him, despite knowing he was mentally ill? This is not a comment about whether they should have done anything, just an obvious argument as to why it would still be an obituary. --Jimmi Hugh 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It becomes a list of people killed during a certain event as opposed to a list of people murdered by the same person, which is by definition a memorial; plus, it seems like that is what was done with the Columbine article Brett 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete -- the information is already a part of the main article. I don't believe it warrants another separate article in Wikipedia. N2e 23:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Darrik2 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is not a vote, but a deliberation on policy, and that you ought to explain your position. Cheeser1 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems like everybody keeps complaining that the massarcre page is too long, but then you don't want to let anything stay that helps shorten it. Violask81976 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that policies should not conflict. In order to reduce length... either unnecesary content should be removed from the main article, or something worthy of being a seperate article should be removed. One policy does not lead to another being ignored. -- Jimmi Hugh 01:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not the policy. If an article is too long, subarticles are made if the subject is notable enough. Dionyseus 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is clearly a notable event, those who died due to this event are notable enough to have an article that lists their name. Dionyseus 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh... but do they deserve to have it listed twice? --Jimmi Hugh 01:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear violation of WP:MEMORIAL. I understand and sympathize with those who with to honor the victims, but Wikipedia is not the place to do so. I prefer a merge to the main article over a keep, but I do not believe that the list currently in the main article is necessary.--FreeKresge 02:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a violation of WP:MEMORIAL because the deceased are "notable", as the are an important part of the incident itself. Certainly the the shootings would have been far less newsworthy had no one died. Ergo, the victims are notable.--JRNorbergé 02:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the shooter attacked different buildings and killed a completely different group of 32 people, would this story be any less newsworthy? Except for a couple of professors who meet the requirements of WP:PROF, it is not the victims who are notable but the number of victims. The opening paragraph of the main article clearly states the number of victims. There is no need for this article.--FreeKresge 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alkivar. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepTruly a momentous occasion in US History, and the rule of "no memorials" could probably easily be sidestepped in this situation. Jmlk17 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, it can't. You don't just ignore Wikipedia policy because you want to honor victims of a tragedy. Jeff Silvers 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Except that this isn't a violation of the Wikipedia policy on memorials because these victims are notable. Dionyseus 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:IAR? -Halo 06:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • IAR wouldn't apply in this case. Rockstar(T/C) 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Out of interest, why not? If you think a policy is too vague, or just plain wrong, and as such it's detremental to useful information being putting in the encyclopaedia, surely that's the exact purpose of WP:IAR? -Halo 17:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break #2[edit]

  • Merge The list of victims is essential to a full understanding of the event and should be kept with the main article. --Amlz 05:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list seems large enough to stand on its own, and the subject is certainly notable enough. .V. [Talk|Email] 05:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: Because the list is quite long, and because I suspect that people would want to include a little more biographical information than just names, the list should be on a different page. Rooot 15:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove It fits just fine into the main article. If one of the persons is important, we can create an article. --Ysangkok 16:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is, still, not a memorial. Railwayman 17:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - relevant to the event. The ages of the majority of the victims is relevant, and the fact they come from a wide area, and is what makes it such a tragedy. I also think they're noteworthy enough as a group to deserve an article. I think people are also misrepresenting the spirit of WP:MEMORIAL, where is specifically says "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives" - I doubt most of the voters, or contributors to the article, are friends or relatives of the deceased. It's not here to honour them, it's more a factual list. -Halo 17:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The list is short enough to fit into the main article. It does not need an article of it's own.
  • Keep The memorial deletions above are a misapplication of that section of that part of policy, in my opinion. WP:MEMORIAL says that "...Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered", but does not say that subjects of notable mass murders can not be discussed or listed at all in the proper context of a synopsis article. In other words, while I agree that most of these victims should not have their own separate article, I do think it is perfectly acceptable to have a list article that summarizes verifiable published information about the murder victims in one place. Such a list taken as a whole is an important, notable part of the information about the crime as a whole. Therefore I recommend keeping this list, since the list is a notable sub-topic and reference for the main article, but do not necessarilly support individual separate articles on individual victims. Dugwiki 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dugwiki RaveenS 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above. Qjuad 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly merge and redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. WP:MEMORIAL is applicable in this case because notability has to have existed prior to the event occurring (or afterward if they gain notability for something other than being a victim). --Coredesat 00:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It should be put in the main article, there is no point in having it in a different section, it's on the same topic. --Jesant13 01:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - For about a billion reasons cited above! --JayHenry 01:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Although Wikipedia is not an online memorial, this is a list of victims of an incident that already meets Wikipedia's notability standards. When an incident is noteworthy for the people killed in the tragety, certainly the names of the people killed and some basic information (age, academic major, status as a graduate/undergraduate student or professor) should be noteworthy. In addition, the alleged murderer has his own article. It seems reasonable that the victims can at least have 1/32 of an article. Q0 02:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Should be merged same topic and extremely relevant when reading article. --KianTech 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I've been very vociferous regarding deleting the few individual entries for the victims of the Vtech disaster, arguing for deleting them: With the exceptions of Prof.s Granata and Livescu, who were notable before the incident, all were notable only incidental to the tragedy. Having said that, as a group, for informational purposes I could accept leaving this as an entry, especially since it would relieve pressure on the looming, large main entry for the VTech incident. I am open to arguments and comments, as ever. Pablosecca 09:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Extreme Prejudice I strongly vote to have it merged into the main article or the timeline page and take an idea from this section of the main Columbine_High_School_massacre page by utilizing sidebars. --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per precedent. There was a separate list for the Bath School disaster victims and this was merged per unanimous consensus. Since the Bath victims are almost 'double' the number of victims in Virginia (counting injured), there is no reason to create a freestanding article for the victims of this tragedy. If any of the victims are 'independently notable', then that merits a separate article for that individual. Otherwise, there's no basis to set forth anything further than name, age and occupation/student status and that can be fully articulated in the main article. Jtmichcock 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deletion debate on Bath School disaster victims article. Jtmichcock 17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick reminder that Wikipedia is consensus based, and not precedent based. -Halo 19:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A list of victims can easily fit into the main article. Sure, the event itself was a notable and massive one, but a list of the victems and any small information on them is not notable. I recommend merging any notable information to the main article on the massacre. 5aret 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's no reason why there shouldn't be some duplication of information. (I know the main article's long, but this would be small and it's getting significantly trimmed down as we type.) A compact list can be maintained on the main article, with a more detailed list than would fit there in this subarticle. 'More detailed' need not include a biography, what Matthew described below would do excellently. --Kizor 18:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - These list of individuals killed in the Virginia Tech massacre is a notable subject and the article's content is presented in an encyclopedic way (very informative) and is encyclopedic. Should be kept as a separate article to reduce length of the main VTm article. The various delete arguments seem to be an amalgamation of I don't like it and misapprehension of the WP:MEMORIAL policy. AVB 2723 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for all of the various well-put and overwhelmingly well-reasoned arguments above. There seems to be widespread interest in this list be web surfers, historical validity for its inclusion, enough media attention to shake a stick at, well-referenced and verfiable evidence to back up the article, and so on and so on. --24.154.173.243 20:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge - The list is simply cut and paste directly from the main article. No reason to have them in both places. PaddyM 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. NO, IT IS NOT. That was five, six days ago. Please check again. --Kizor

New discussion[edit]

Seems there is no clear vote, but furthermore there is a little bit confusion. People voted for "keep", "delete", "merge", "delete or merge" or "keep or merge". We should have separated the Questions

  1. Should this information appear somehow in Wikipedia?
  2. If this information should appear, should it appear in an extra article (List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre) or in the main article (Virginia Tech massacre).

Hope you don't mind starting this again, but it might help getting a clearer discussion. --Abe Lincoln 09:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At last - a clear thinker! :-) (No disrespect to all the previous contributors, by the way) --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there's no clear concensus? Seems to me that it's quite clear that the concensus is to keep. I only see a few deletes in comparison to the keeps and merge. Dionyseus 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are many merges, that might mean keep the information but delete the article or if you must keep it, than rather in the main article, but I'd prefer to delete it. But most people want to keep it, I guess. The question is rather where to put it. Abe Lincoln 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should remember that this is not a vote. Cheeser1 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isn't a vote, but it sure does help determine concensus. The nominating statement itself merely points out WP:MEMORIAL, but the policy actually states that notable subjects are an exception, so the nominator had to provide an argument for why he believes the subjects to be non-notable, something that he did not do. Dionyseus 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is something that has to be proven, and until then, something is presumed non-notable. You can't prove something is non-notable so much as point to a lack of proof otherwise. Cheeser1 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should this information appear somehow in Wikipedia?[edit]

Yes. It should appear because though the individuals are not necessarily notable, the event is, and the identities of the victims is a notable fact with respect to the event. --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It should not appear as a distinct list either in a separate list article or in the main article, because of policy - WP:MEMORIAL. The event is notable, but the victims in and of themselves are not notable except for the manner of their death. WP:BIO apparently used to have a section that allowed the manner of a person's death to allow inclusion if notable, but it no longer does. The names could be included in a discursive manner within the body of the main article, where and if appropriate. There is no similar list for victims of other equally or more notable tragedies such as 911, Columbine, the Omagh bombing, etc. When such lists have been included, they've been removed. (Of course, WP:MEMORIAL and/or WP:BIO could always be amended). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are similar lists for victims of at least two other notable U.S. school shootings, and the notability of these was not contested until this debate was underway. Both have since been tagged with an AfD, which probably is a violation of WP:POINT. However, whether or not other similar lists exist is not a suitable argument for the notability (at least currently) of this list of people. They are all receiving an enormous amount of press, and clearly a lot of attention within wikipedia. Whom does it serve to delete this list at this point in history? HokieRNB 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Of course, there's nothing to prevent a prominent link to an external list of the victims, something I had to do on Omagh bombing after the list of victims was first moved from the main article to a sub-page then removed entirealy, as discussed here). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are a victims of a highly notable and heavily covered crime. This makes them notable, especially with the media coverage they are each receiving. --Falcorian (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the information is factual and verifiable, and it adds value to our coverage of the event. This seems like a textbook WP:NOT#PAPER situation. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose mentioning who was killed or wounded, but a simple list of names or presentation of too many details apart from their role in the massacre would run the danger of becoming a memorial.--FreeKresge 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes as appearing in list format either in Wikipedia or Wikisource Verifiable lists of victims are an important data point for articles about mass murders. The list as a whole should appear either within the main article on the crime (space permitting) or, if the number of victims is sufficiently large, as a subarticle supporting the main article. Another alternative is to have the list as a reference page in Wikisource (if all you have are names and no other encyclopedic style information on the victims). Either way, this is very important, verifiable published information and thus belongs in Wikipedia or Wikisource in some form. WP:MEMORIAL does not apply to these sorts of lists. Dugwiki 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that exception listed? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The factual information about the victims of this event should be included. At the least, this should include their names, ages, roles at Va Tech (student, faculty, etc) and where they were at the time of their murder. I don't see a reason to go much beyond that. This is an important part of the body of knowledge surrounding the Virginia Tech massacre. --Crunch 19:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think these details are important for the historical record. Believe it or not, some readers are interested in the victims as well as the murderer. The List of Charles Whitman's victims is an example of how the information should be presented. Last year, I consulted that list because one of those victims taught me calculus a few years before he was shot in Texas in 1966. (Yes, this means that I am older than most of you). Dirac66 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then where?[edit]

Not in the main article, as it ruins its flow and is inelegent. So put it on a separate page. This allows readers who want more detail to get more detail - without prventing an understanding of events by overloading the main article with too much detail. --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has been well established that the list itself is notable, while individuals on it clearly do not pass that test merely by being a part of the list. Additionally, there has been so much activity in the main article (as well as this one), that as a simple matter of convenience it is helpful to have this piece separated out and developed on its own. Now that the facts have mostly been sorted out regarding the victims - how many, who, from where - this page probably doesn't need to go through much more editing and can stand as a point of reference from the main article. As is the nature of any encyclopedia, the usefulness of information is cyclical in nature, and over time (months?) the list can be edited down to just names and merged back into the main article. How can we achieve some closure to this debate? HokieRNB 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with placement in either the main article on the shootings, or in a standalone list (though preferably not both at the same time). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the victims should be mentioned in the Virginia Tech massacre timeline article and integrated into the text. This would put the focus on what is notable--the victims' role in the event. I oppose a simple list of the victims either as a separate article or as a separate section in the main article. As a compromise, I would not object to something like the sidebars in the Columbine High School massacre article which list the victims and where they were shot.--FreeKresge 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Own article, since the names are not important at all for the event itself, but only for those who want to do further research about these poor souls (which will be a minority in the future probably). --Abe Lincoln 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer varies on size Murders with a small number of victims should probably just include the victim's list within their main article. Mass murders where there are a large number of victims and such a list would be unwieldy in the main article should probably separate the list out as either a subarticle or place it in Wikisource as a reference page. Dugwiki 18:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged However we look at it and whichever other policies we try to fulfil this article is a terrible candidate for being stand alone. Whatever information we add to each item on the list, it will not stop beign an obituary! The only way it would not be an obituary is if it was written in prose, unfortunately then it would simply mimick the main article with more focus on the specific shootign and become redundent. I think we should pick a different section to be taken out, this one simply will never fit into guidlines --Jimmi Hugh 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only Merged Especially after 911, emotions are running high on any wanton act perpetrated on Americans. Whilst I would not expect to see lists of victims for each and every massacre, independent of scale, I believe that this list in this case fits the mood, notable as the event, but could exist within context of the article, worked in to either in Virginia Tech massacre or Virginia Tech massacre timeline. This is a list of 30-odd names, already part of Virginia Tech massacre. A separate article would constitute a memorial, and would be an invitation for people to start expanding the article beyond notable biographical details and into the trivial existence of individuals who would not have merited a listing if they had not been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Have a look at the article again: with all the flags and descriptions of the courses the victims were on, it bears an increasing resemblance to memorials we are well accustomed to seeing. Ohconfucius 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. I don't think it matters if it's in its own article of included in the main Virginia Tech massacre article. The main point is to keep the information on the victims from expanding into a memorial. --Crunch 19:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then to what level of detail?[edit]

Names only? Names plus very basic information such as age, location/time of death, and status within the university? Longer capsule descriptions of a biographical nature? Please be explicit as to what should be in, and what should be out. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short, concise bio of a sentence or two will suffice. There is no need to delete anything, neither is there any need for the victim's life stories, unless they are particularly notable, such as the hero professor. A 2 line bio on Wiki will suffice and anyone wishing to do further study on a person should search for memorial pages and articles. Romancer 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for those who have achieved notability outside the massacre, such as a professor who passes WP:PROF, I would limit information just to what is relevant to the massacre. This could include location/time of death, how many times the person was shot, where the person was shot (e.g., head, chest, but do not make this too morbid), and any verifiable information about what the person did during the event (such as the actions of the hero professor). Last I heard, it was not yet known if the shooter specifically targeted the first victim. If the shooter did target her, any verifiable reasons why he would do so would also be relevant. I would not object to very basic information about the victims, such as or status in the university, but including much more information than that would risk turning this into a memorial.--FreeKresge 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer varies on published information This part is where WP:MEMORIAL would apply. There's no need to create memorial style articles on individual victims talking about otherwise non-notable aspects of their personal lives. So lists should generally be limited to the names and very basic information about the people, as well as information about the person that directly ties to the event. You don't need to know every detail about every high school sports award or the victim's occupation and hobbies, but it is useful to know exactly how they are related to the event and what they apparently did during it. Dugwiki 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Descriptions are fine as they are WP:MEMORIAL says we shouldn't make memorial pages for non-notable people. However, these people were made notable by the tragedy (that doesn't seem to be particularly in dispute.) My point is that, because they are notable for this, they are entitled to a bit more description. An example would be an article about any particular notable fellow, let's say, an author. Oftentimes the article would talk about the person's birth date, children, marital status, etc. However, chances are, they are not notable for any of that. Because they are notable in here, short descriptions are acceptable IMO. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reply a moment, a person being involved in a mass tragedy doesn't necessarily mean that that individual person is "notable" per se. It just means that their name will probably be indirectly mentioned in published discussions about the event. Notability refers to something non-trivial being written specifically about a subject, but it's not always the case that something non-trivial is written about victims of tragedies. So while the list of names on a mass murder as a whole is notable, it doesn't necessarily follow that every individual person on that list has received sufficient individual published discourse to be considered notable. Combine that with the fact that articles should leave out emotional or historically unimportant details on the subject and that means that you probably should not have an individual article on a victim unless there is something of substance to say about them that can't be simply included in a simple summary list of all the victims. Dugwiki 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The victims of this shooting will be the primary subject of individual news items by their home-town newspapers and TV stations, etc. Some of them will even receive segments and articles in the national or international press. It will be no troulbe to find 2+ reliable non-trivial stories directly about every single victim.
It is typical for us to include information that is not directly related to that person's fame. For instance, we may give their birth place, even if they moved away and did not grow up there. We may include their parents name or number of children or what some of their hobbies were. There is nothing wrong with giving a well rounded description of the person. We don't have to put our blinders on. Johntex\talk 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been arguing for inclusion, I think this would be excessive and the kind of thing that WP:MEMORIAL is about. Yes, each of these people will likely receive local and probably national attention, individually. However, because their notability comes as a result of their deaths in a tragedy, we should limit the facts to those relevant to the tragedy. Name, age, faculty/student, maybe subject of study, where they died. Once you start talking about favorite hobbies, I think you cross the line into memorial territory.Chunky Rice 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost exactly what Chunky said: Name, age, faculty/student, major, where they died, and anything relevant to why they died (e.g. they were the RA and had responded to a distrubance) anything else is probably not notable and falls under WP:MEMORIAL. --Matthew 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's some cognitive dissonance to these arguments. I get the feeling that some people believe that while most of the individuals are non-notable, putting together a list of all these non-notable people means the list will become notable. Sort of a "synergy" argument of sorts. If these victims are not notable enough for an article on the person, then collectively putting their names on one page does not create notability. There's a website with all the names of the ~50,000 deceased persons listed on the Vietnam memorial[1]. Under the proponent's argument, there should be an article called "List of American Vietnam War casualties." It would make just as much sense. Another way to look at this is: If Cho, instead of a pistol had acquired and set off a nuke, should there be a list of the thousands murdered? (You could make the same argument to support a "List of Hiroshima victims). I wouldn't think so, but no one is arguing that there should be a cut-off simply because the numbers are 33 and not 10,000. 67.149.103.119 03:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact the list of victoms should appear *twice* on wikipedia, one on Virginia Tech massacre and every person should be mentioned in Virginia Tech massacre timeline. I don't see anything wrong with including a little information about the victims in the timeline, such as where they were from, spouse, etc. So the Timeline supersedes this page, and this page should be deleted. If you want to keep this page, you should present some information which can be included here, but can not be included on the timeline. JeffBurdges 12:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The victim list should contain a short bio, birth, etc; The timeline should contain only names, not place of birth or spouse, which have nothing to do with the timeline. Romancer 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point was that the timeline should contain the timeline of the shooting itself, if that is ever released. It currently contains only the timeline of news releases, which is kinda silly, and will eventually be deleted. But a timeline containing a detailed account of the incident itself would obviously contain the information on the victims in a paragraph format, which could include where they were born and such. I think your describing a memorial page here. JeffBurdges 13:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained above, name, age, where they were at the time they were killed and their role at the university should be sufficient. This is not a memorial article and it's important to avoid expanding into a "short bio" or including things like hobbies, spouses's name or other information not relevant to the massacre itself. --Crunch 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The amount of current attention to this incident and the length of the parent article makes this supplement needed and useful. The extended bios here are of significance to Wikipedia users everywhere. Maybe 3-5 years for now the argument for merging will be more timely. For now this memorial serves the interests of an interested community.grubbmeister 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEMORIAL states that this or any other memorial, regardless of how "interested" people might be in seeing it, is not necessarily encyclopedic. Notability must be established, and not just for these people, but for this particular article. If not, this information can go in other articles pertaining to the event. Cheeser1 04:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has clearly been established. Dionyseus 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This content is very worthy of an encyclopedia, and should not be lost. I'd rather have this article, rather than individual articles to non-notable victims (several of which I voted to have deleted). +mwtoews 04:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because a centralised page is better than having it spread across 30 or more articles, which will inevitably occur - Domingo Arroyo, the article for the first marine killed, has had keep votes voted on it because he's been remembered in several notable ways, which I have no doubt will happen here to many of the victims. Secondarily, victims of crime are often considered notable where they provoke a change in the law/significant comment from politicans, which this already has and may cause, such as Megan's law in the US or Sarah's law in the UK. I do believe every single article created off from the main apart from that of the perpetrator has been AFD'ed so far - surely some kind of record? RHB Talk - Edits 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Event has received multiday media coverage, while individual victims of crime are not notable the list itself is. Additionally it's not expansive (certainly no Titanic) and is tightly referenced. If we were talking about one or two people - I'd say merge. But the number of victims seems to merit a list article per summary style. No compelling arguments to delete - WP:Memorial would seem to apply if we were talking about my grandfather, not an event with coverage on this scale. Megapixie 11:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The list is given in the main article. There is no need for a separate page. JoshuaZ 17:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The list of victims is encyclopedic, and right now the main article is too long. It seems silly to me to have this back and forth and back and forth about creation/deletion/merging. Let's have two main articles, the shooting and the victims, plus a few for truly notable people involved, and after six weeks or so when the flurry has died down, the main article can be re-assessed and if enough can be cut from it to allow re-inclusion of the list, then do so then. Anchoress 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New organization[edit]

I organized the information by room and explained the general fates of the classrooms. WhisperToMe 22:51, 22 April 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre&oldid=1179012911"