Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of China Inland Mission missionaries killed during the Boxer Rebellion


 * 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. The arguments for deletion are more grounded in policy and guideline than the arguments for retention here. –MuZemike 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

List of China Inland Mission missionaries killed during the Boxer Rebellion

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

List of non-notable people. "Martyred" is also POV. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete & Comment Martyr is not a pov see Martyr. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. They might not be notable in your culture but certainly they are in ours. And I don't think a handful of Wikipedians who take part in this discussion have authority to claim who are notable and who are not. There is no universal standard. --GnuDoyng (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the purpose of AfD, to see whether Wikipedia as a whole can determine notability. Your bald-faced proclamation has no weight. Explain what makes them notable.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Highly useful list relating to a major historical event. The group is finite, easily defined.  I cannot understand the rationale for deleting Vartanza (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL; if these people aren't notable enough for their own articles, then this is a memorial. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is an invalid vote. Please log in to vote again. --GnuDoyng (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment. There is no rule against IP editors contributing to a deletion discussion.  And by the way: we do not vote, we argue.  Favonian (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- Favonian (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If none of the people on a list are notable enough to sustain a reliably sourced verifiable article, the list should not exist. If their only notability is collective, then the article should focus on their collective properties, and their individual names are not necessarily relevant. This article also appears to be simply a combination of the China Martyrs of 1900 article and a transcription of the primary source memorial plaque linked in it. gnfnrf (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, answer me: by what standard do you deem someone to be notable? --GnuDoyng (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What constitutes notability for persons is described in WP:BIO. Favonian (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Being the victim of a crime {eg. religious persecution) does not make the vicitm notable see Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Francis Edith Nathan has just been speedy deleted for failure to show what made her notable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I have found this and similar lists pragmatically beneficial.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete Clearly falls under the provisions of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Favonian (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2010 (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.