Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comair 5191 Passenger and Crew List


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comair 5191 Passenger and Crew List
The page is just a list of the passengers and crew of Comair Flight 5191 (the flight that crashed in Kentucky, for those not familiar). The few people with notability worth mentioning are already mentioned in a "Victims" section of Comair Flight 5191; the rest are only mentioned at all in the news because they died in the crash. &mdash;LrdChaos 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is in poor taste to talk about casualty lists in terms of "notability." The list itself may be notable even if all of the individuals would not qualify to have their own biographical page. I think this list is of inherent notability and interest and I favor keeping it. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
 * I don't believe it is in poor taste. We're not talking about the value of someone's life, but rather whether it was important enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Sadly, 99% of the people in the world will lead normal, boring, regular lives and will not get to see their name in an encyclopedia, however tragic their death may have been.  Certain people's manner of death may be enough to bring them up to a level warranting inclusion, but this is not the case. Peyna 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep They have become notable collectively in the accident. We may not yet know whether some of the people were otherwise notable, though they were not in Wikipedia at the time of the accident.  I think the use of the word " just a list of passengers" was unecessary.  The title explains who the people are; by saying "just" it minimizes their personal value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfields1 (talk • contribs)
 * And those who died in Hurricaine Katrina, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, 9/11, the Holocaust all are notable collectively in the same way? Don't think so....Carlossuarez46 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Their "collective notability" should be addressed in just that way, "collectively." In other words, the article about the crash, whether or not we list them, covers this concern. Peyna 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, dying in a plane crash does not give you notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. By long standing precedent such deaths are not notable. Yes they are sad and tragic, but their deaths aren't encyclipedic. JoshuaZ 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing the value in keeping this. I mean no disrespect for the victims, but I don't think this belongs on Wikipedia, any more than we need a List of people killed in World War I or List of victims of cancer. William Pietri 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. If we don't have a List of 9/11 victims, then we don't need to have this, either. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I deny that this article is a "memorial." In considering what is and isn't a memorial, intention is key: something ordinarily meaningless can become a "memorial" if done with a certain intention, like shooting free throws with your left hand instead of right see: Hank Gathers. The policy says, "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives" (presumably by creating a biographical article about them). But this article is not intended to "honor" the victims but to simply state who in fact died. It thus falls outside the prohibition.
 * But there is one sentence from the policy which needs to be addressed: Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered. But the "subject" of this article is not the individuals by themselves, but the individuals as a group. I agree with you that an article about any of them individually would not pass muster, but the prohibition by its terms does not reach casualty lists, which are not biographical in nature. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
 * As a group, their story is covered in detail at Comair Flight 5191. Peyna 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why not a casualty list as well? Surely a question begged by an article about this disaster is, "Who died in this crash"? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
 * First of all, that is not begging the question. Second of all; unless you knew them, or they were otherwise significant prior to dying in the crash, who died in this crash is not that important to you personally or a matter for an encyclopedia to cover.  Wikipedia's goal is not to contain every possible piece of information in the world, but to be an encyclopedia. Peyna 19:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Listcruft. It is the event that is important, not the individual people associated with it (unless they are notable in their own right). No encyclopedic value whatsoever. —dustmite 21:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete They're not - in enyclopedic terms - individually notable. Sorry. --kingboyk 21:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ogdred 21:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JoshuaZ. &mdash; Khoikhoi 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete tragic, but not suitable - imagine the precedent that would be set if this was accepted. Camillus (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above. Victims are not notable merely for having died in a tragic accident.--chris.lawson 23:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Mawkish rubbish! 84.9.83.105 23:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a memorial, period. Danny Lilithborne 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatant listcruft. The event is already well enough covered in its own article. My Alt Account 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the best memorial would not to list the names of the victims here.-- danntm T C 01:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This page answers a fundamental question. Who died in the crash of Comair 5191? The list tells the story. The dead are notable as a group for being killed together in the same notable crash. This sub-page is just a fork to keep the main page within a reasonable size. This page does not serve  as a memorial or to succor anyones vanity. 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mytwocents (talk • contribs).
 * Delete as unencyclopedic; Wikipedia is not intended to be a comprehensive repository of list/table/etc. type data. --MCB 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Punkmorten 06:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Tragic though every one of these deaths is, are we to have lists for every disaster? List of people killed on Japan Airlines Flight 123 might get pretty boring. - Blood red sandman 06:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete While I agree there should be a list available to those who are interested, Wikipedia is not the place for it. VxSote 13:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already voted, and here is where I will give my reason why. None of the people were in Wikipedia before August 27th (date of crash).  It is possible that some of them will become notable, because their work may be "undiscovered" at this point.  There is also the possibility that, as a result of the NTSB investigation, a person or persons may become notable (though unlikely).  I voted the way I did because of their notability as a group.  I already stated my reasons on the Comair page a long time ago, if this page is deleted, then all the names need to be deleted from the Comair Flight 5191 page, except perhaps the two pilot names since their names are the only one likely to be mentioned in the NTSB reports in the future.  If this page is deleted, then I immediately request that the editor justify why all the other names will remain on the Comair 5191 page.  Likewise the names of the rescuers would be non-notable.  Mfields1 15:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Some names are necessary to help complete the narrative. Otherwise we have a lot of pronouns. Peyna 15:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the passenger names are needed in the narrative in the second paragraph of the "Victims" section. It is not titled well anyway - you cannot name 3 "victims" and exclude the 44 other victims, including mentioning the nationalities of 5.  All the activities mentioned, exclusive of the crash, happen in this country every day - people from UK, Chicago White Sox minor leaguers, married people, persons on their honeymoon, Habitat ofr Humanity people, and yes Canadians and Japanese - they all fly every day.  People meet other people at the airport every day - why is that shown as notable?  The memorials are now past events - why is that a historical note?  If it is, then it would be more important to list the names of those memorialized than the event itself.  The section was incorrectly headed a long time ago - the section should be "passengers" or "Fatalities" or whatever - and other than a simple statement such as "47 passengers and 2 crew members were killed in the accident, with a lone survivor, the First Officer James Polehinke" I can't see all the other items as being encyclopedic.  If they are, they we need to tell all the other stories too - the couple who were going on a 2nd honeymoon, the woman who was in Lexington to buy a horse, the man who missed the flight on Saturday and took the Sunday flight, etc.  The problem is a few people early on embelished the section with their own prose, then when other editors wanted to add to it, they are being smacked down.  Mfields1 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My comment was limited to the names regarding pulling the first officer out, and the sequence of events leading up to the crash. Those names are not a big deal, because they complete the narrative regarding what happened.  The list of names of everyone else in the crash doesn't do much for the article or the story of the Comair 5191. Peyna 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree that the "human interest" stories about the couple on their honeymoon, etc., don't really belong either. I think it's in the article because CNN covered the honeymooner angle pretty extensively, but to be honest, the reason CNN covered it was to make money by playing on people's emotions, plain and simple.  I don't need some manipulative human interest piece from CNN to remind me that when 49 people die that it's a horrible tragedy.  Every person on that plane had hopes and dreams that were crushed.  The fact that CNN decided to focus on the hopes and dreams of one couple, just in order to get more eyeballs, doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipedia.  Feel free to delete that part too! --Jaysweet 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The exact same reason your local media probably tried to find some connection between your area and the crash, or when the Tsunamis hit Indonesia we heard more stories on American media about all of the American victims and survivors than the Indonesians that lost everything. Peyna 22:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Temporary Keep Delete (Changed my mind at 21:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)) Please see the history and Talk page for Comair Flight 5191.  It is increasingly difficult to keep the victims list off of the main article page.  In the spirit of picking one's battles, I think this article should be kept for a few months, until the interest in the main article dies down, and then delete it.  I would much rather have an unnecessary near-orphan page floating around Wikipedia for a couple months than have a highly visible article polluted with non-notable information. --Jaysweet 20:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as Wikipedia is not a database of lists. I do feel, however, that a link to a list of the victims should be added to the Comair Flight 5191 article, possibly this link from Yahoo News? - DiegoTehMexican 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. ​​​​ ​​Auburn​​​ ​​​​ ​​ ​​Pilot​ ​​​​​ 20:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JoshuaZ. Carlossuarez46 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. – Zntrip 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Many disasters have their own articles, and victims are not generally listed, because they were literally "just along for the ride" and had little or no role in causing the disaster. The pilots deserve mention by name as part of the narrative sequence of this story, when their action or failure to act is likely causal. Likewise if a passenger in an air crash shot the pilots or otherwise caused the crash like the 9/11 hijackers, they are an important part of the story. There is a victim list for the Donner Party and the Columbine High School Shootings because their actions affected the outcome. But there need not be in general. However, see American Airlines Flight 77 where about 12 non-notable passengers out of 54 victims get mentioned. Sabena Flight 548 mentions ice skaters and their coaches and families, and ignores the rest of the victims. Edison 23:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carlos Suarez Geoffreynham 03:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Inclusion not justified by WP:NOT. Gerd Badur 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, with comments:
 * I can see two other articles that need to be looked at. If this article is deleted, so should the lists of victims of the Munich air disaster and Superga air disaster. Granted, those may be exceptions because of the independent notability of many of the victims—the Munich disaster killed many players on a Manchester United team that were two-time defending English champions, and the Superga disaster killed a Torino team that had won five consecutive Serie A titles. Still, if you delete this list, you should by the same logic delete the lists included in the Munich and Superga articles.
 * I agree with the consensus that Wikipedia isn't the place for such a list. I'd like to know what is. (Actually, I have a clue; you can bet there will be memorial sites sprouting all over the Net before too long.) Also, whoever suggested the Yahoo! link to the victims list may not have been aware that Yahoo! news links are not permanent. They typically go away about two weeks after a story runs. — Dale Arnett 04:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I had to think about this one for a minute, because in the case of sports teams being wiped out, of course that has more notability -- but after a bit of consideration, you are 100% correct, Dale: in aggregate, the death of the sports team is notable, but with the exception of star players (who I imagine would have their own article anyway) that is not notable enough in and of itself to warrant a list. You are totally correct, those articles should be AfD'd as well. --Jaysweet 05:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - you're having a laugh now - just try deleting those articles, sit back, and wait for WWIII! Camillus (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually mispoke, I meant just paring down the victims listing, not deleting the article (the events themselves are clearly notable in those cases). But yeah, you're probably right that would be WWIII anyway ;D --Jaysweet 17:29, 14 September 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.