User:Locke Cole/Victim Names:Full reply to Mandruss

Mandruss has given us a lot to unpack. But suffice it to say, other than pointing to previous discussions, he's provided little actual reason to exclude the lists. I'm going to go, in order, and explain the flaws in his argument.
 * Oppose. Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. If they are deemed relevant, genders, ages, and/or ethnicities could be summarized in prose.Further, there are arguable privacy concerns. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. "Well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia.For the multiple excellent counters to arguments about precedent in other articles, including the vast majority in which the lists have received little or no discussion, search for "90%" at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2.  The 90% number largely represents the effective equivalent of democratic voting by editing  Wikipedia is not a democracy  and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years. It falls so far that nobody can claim that it represents a community consensus for the lists. Attempts to reach a consensus in community venues such as the Village Pump have repeatedly failed, despite arguments about precedent, and there could be little clearer evidence of the absence of a community consensus for the lists. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ONUS

A subsection link to WP:V. Let's quote that, since he thinks it's important here:

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.

Mandruss appears to be leaning on the "all verifiable information need not be included in an article". What he forgets is that the information he is attempting to censor is core to the event the article discusses. The event would be less likely to have the notability to sustain an article without the death or injury of the victims (articles about attempted mass shootings exist, but at a far lower frequency). Excluding the information runs afoul of WP:UNDUE, full quoting for reference:

The most important and relevant part to countering his argument is in the first sentence: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Obviously omitting the names of the victims, when they are in fact covered in much more detail by our reliable sources, is not acceptable. In fact,