Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings/2005-07-10

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC) ''Voting on this article has completed. The consensus is to keep the page. Please do not edit this page further - it is retained as a historical record.''

Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings

 * Delete, as per the foreign casualties one above, jguk 10:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Page has clear use, purpose and notability. If they haven't identified any casualties by the time the VfD for this article ends, I'll eat my hat. --Kizor 11:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - uas per Kizor. Merge in foreign casualties info. Rich Farmbrough 11:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There will be a list of about 70 deaths - if the info is worth keeping (and I don't think it is), it would be better on Wikisource anyway (or maybe Wikinews), not as an encyclopaedia article, jguk 11:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Imagine I'm looking for information: I google, this article pops up, I come here. Six lines, three numbers.  I am no better off, I have not gained any knowledge.  Can'tHearTheMusicForTheStatic 12:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete- I don't think the list will be encyclopedic, maybe move to Wikisource Astrotrain 14:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with Kizor - james gibbon  15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep,This information should exist together with the article about the bombing. It could be merged onto the page, but it could become a long page itself, and I think for reasons of decency it could well be kept a separate page. I agree that right now it is trivial, but it will acquire content. reconsider in 6 months once facts are known. I do not think that long-term an obituary list would be appropriate unless the people remain notable in the future because of what happened to them, but this is possible yet. Right now, they would have to be considered notable.Sandpiper 16:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge my article about the foreign victims to this one. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm in agreement with Zscout. It's useful, and as the time goes on, it will be expanded, which it is need of. Merge foreign victims with this one, and fill in the articles in the box, and we're all good. -mysekurity 18:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Either it's an obituary (in which case delete because WP != memorial) or it's a list of 3 or maybe 6 numbers (in which case delete because this info wants to be in another article). Wile E. Heresiarch 20:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The scale of the incident does not warrant as many articles, a few days on, as there are about 9/11, a few years on. If the present article becomes unwieldy it can calve itself as needed. --Dhartung | Talk 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Excessive, and I live in london, and was even on the street next to the bus when it exploded.     20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How does your being alive affect the notability of this article?-Splash 22:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I gather buses must explode next to     house every day to warrant this being non notable. JamesBurns 03:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, as it will grow given time (and not much of it). If it doesn't it can be merged later into the main article. We have sooo much 9/11-cruft we can admit a little Londonbomb-cruft too. And no, I'm not from London. -Splash 22:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Possible candidate for merge at a later time Youngamerican 14:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for the moment - but let's keep an eye once it settles down and see whether it's merge-worthy later. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 14:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please now is not the time to argue about this really Yuckfoo 23:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Wile E. Heresiarch's second scenario (it's a list of numbers) into the main article. If it's intended as a list of names, then in addition to being crass, it's as noted a violation of WP:Not a Memorial.  The Literate Engineer 04:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We seem to be forgetting that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. Casualty lists like these are not encyclopaedic and do not belong here. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 14:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For those stating that Wiki is not a memorial, here is the policy: "Memorials. It's often sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." What this means is that we can list how many have died in an accident, but we cannot have articles on everyone that was killed in the attack. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the page as it appears at the moment could easily be condensed into a sentence or two in the main 7 July 2005 London bombings article. All it is is a few figures broken up with superfluous headings. And I would also take the view that the names of the dead are not worthy of inclusion. Just the other day the 9/11 casualty lists were transwikied to the sep11 wiki on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a memorial. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 16:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case, perhaps we wait the same 4 years before transiki-ing this list? Keep as long as it expands to a list of casualties instead of simple numbers. --Habap 17:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete if similar list for 911 attacks was deleted, this one should go too.  Grue   19:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful resource, unavailable elsewhere with such simplicity. If similar list of 911 attacks was deleted, it should be brought back--Muchosucko 20:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The 911 list was not deleted, it was moved to the memorial wiki. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and we don't have lists of victims of terrorist attacks in the main encyclopedia. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 20:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have merged into this article the information from the main article. Andy Mabbett 11:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, informative. Thue | talk 10:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Information has been moved here from the main article as that is getting too large. -- Arwel 10:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Now that very crucial information has been moved there from the main article, it's important that this page be kept.  Moncrief 10:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are facts, and Wikipedia is a source of facts. Brendanurbanwarrior 11:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - it's being used to spin off parts of the main article to keep the size down. David | Talk 11:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Dbiv. Additionally, the casualty numbers is one of the most frequently changing parts of this, and keeping the number of casualties in a seperate page both let us go into more detail and give us some sanity in the main page.  Almafeta 11:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. As it presently stands this is a useful spinoff article. It could do with a little tidying up at the start, but the information that is there is worthy of an article, particularly if it were structured into a timeline of when identifications were made and to highlight the problems of the recovery of remains. Its obvious now, less than a week after the attacks, what the timescale is and what the effort involved is. This might not be the case in 6 months or a years time, let alone 10 years time. Thryduulf 13:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - this could be a useful resource and prevents the main page from being cluttered. Andrew 14:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly Keep . Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 17:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable Islamic terrorism incident. Klonimus 20:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to close out the voting and declare this a Keep (or Speedy Keep) now. Better yet, an admin with more experience in closing votes should do it (probably needs to as I've voted here).  I think there's broad consensus that this article is now a keeper, considering the major changes that have been made to it since it was nominated and considering its importance to one of the most heavily-viewed articles in Wikipedia right now.  The VfD tag diminshes it.  I know the lag time since nomination is shorter than for most VfDs, so okay, speedy keep.  Objections? Moncrief 20:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keeeeeep it--good to see a solid consensus about this Everyking 06:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for as long as the 9/11 list stayed on Wikipedia (~4 years ). This list is Wikipedia at its best where else does one go on the internet for up to the minute information. Lumos3 09:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. GhePeU 15:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into main article. (I'm asuming here that the current page is very different from the original page listed for deletion...) -- SGBailey 16:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, very different diff. Thryduulf 22:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Omegatron 21:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep -- Joolz 22:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, absolutely. Redux 03:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I have been searching for this information to see if any old friends were involved and found it only exists here - lets hope it gets updated as more identifications are made --DavidP 04:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful resource that will undoubtedly be updated over next several days, and will probably morph into something else when the time is right. If wikipedia can sustain many pages dedicated to drinking games like Goon of Fortune and such passtimes as tea sucking (which survived a deletion vote) then surely this can stay. MinorEdit 06:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- per MinorEdit --Mysidia 12:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - important documentary evidence on an historic event. Unbehagen 16:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme strong Keep - Its a tribute to those whose lives has been lost in this terrible incident. Please keep this article and show love towards those whose families is scattered by the insane minds of the people who has no respect for life.User:HGreyling 23:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think the article should be kept, but not on this basis, by no means should the article be such a tribute. Wikipedia is not the place to pay tribute to or honor the dead, see What Wikipedia is not  --Mysidia 00:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I was under the impression "Wikipedia is not a memorial" referred to articles about individual people. I can't see the problem with a simple unlinked list. the wub  "?/!"  21:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. wikipedia has at least 10 000 good-for-nothing articles. this one is interesting and important, good to see there are some muslims which were killed in that barbaric attack such as Gamze from Turkey. a small note might be necessary to add that the killers will not go to Heaven, and they were brain-washed Muslim Brits. 16-7-2005


 * Keep this is an important and unfortunate historic event. JamesBurns 03:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Vary Important page for Wikipedia! so in the interest of Wikipedia and Wikipedians alike, this page NEEDS to be kept. Agent003
 * Keep Great page it is needed
 * Keep - victims aren't only numbers, they had faces and names.Superborsuk 15:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Witkacy 22:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to 7_July_2005_London_bombings or Keepin case that woud become too large. But the actual list of casualities must be deleted. The aggregate numbers may be encyclopedic, the individual names aren't. - Nabla 04:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme lesbian delete --Phroziac (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete names Not notable, invasive, slightly creepy --Dtcdthingy 11:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poor taste, names have no encyclopedic use. Leonig Mig 19:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep informative companion to an article too large for all this. And, if I may say so, IMO you shouldn't say that this is in poor taste because one may just as easily say it's in poor taste to VfD this so soon after the tragedy.  CanadianCaesar 03:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.