Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bullycides


 * 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. Suicides are considered an extremally sensitive topic and there have been very strong opinions expressed in this discussion, much of it relevant, but also some non-arguments such as "There are about 29 things wrong with this".

The BLP issue has been brought up, but I actually didn't find every aspect of those arguments altogether convincing and there were many assertions of BLP violations without real explanations of how the article violated BLP. Note that articles may sometimes contain very unpleasant content about a person while still being BLP compliant if rigorously sourced. However Ken Arromdee made a valid point when he points out "It's violates BLP by implying that people who have not been convicted of causing deaths caused deaths". Even though the names of the alleged bullies are not mentioned, an implication that the peers of the suicide victims were responsible for the tragedy does cast a very dark aspersion, especially if the names involved can be found in a trivially easy manner even if not explicitly in the article.

I appreciate the concerns that A Quest for Knowledge had regarding some of the delete votes, but the issue of the serious nature of the accusations, that bullies were definitively the cause of the suicides on this list, is a valid argument that appears to have consensus support here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

List of bullycides

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notable bullycides found here. Only a few people in this list have articles.  Tentinator   20:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination points out that we have a navigational template which contains a similar list. Per WP:CLN, this is a reason to keep, not to delete. Warden (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (warn)  @ 23:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (barney)  @ 23:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a list of those cases that got ample news coverage. Most cases won't be on the list of course.  Most have their own Wikipedia articles about the person being bullied to suicide, and all have a reference to a reliable source saying this also.   D r e a m Focus  20:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Oh god no. I cannot think of a worse idea than having an article for almost entirely non-notable largely young people who have been driven to suicide. Jesus.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you out of your fucking minds! This is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy, and I can think of no legitimate reason not to blank it right now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The people listed here are dead, not living. See Lists of people by cause of death for numerous other lists of dead people. Warden (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP also applies to the recently decreased, their families, and any alleged bullies.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All those other dead people have families too. BLP means Biographies of Living People.  The page is not a biography and the people are not living.  The policy is not there so you can make an end run around WP:CENSOR any time the topic involves people. Warden (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you really so utterly clueless as to be unaware that WP:BLP policy doesn't only apply to biographies? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors are constantly trying to extend policies contrary to WP:CREEP. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."  See also WP:NOTLAW. Warden (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * see WP:BDP for the recently deceased. BLP applies to all content on wikipedia, not just biographies.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BDP specifies 2 years at the outside as a grace period for recent death. The first person on this list died in 1967 - that's 46 years ago.  Warden (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - violates all sorts of policies, notably WP:V and WP:BLP (at least in spirit). Bullying already mentions all the notable cases; we really don't need this article, which is a flat-out terrible idea. Robofish (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To elaborate: firstly, this list, containing serious information about real people, is almost completely unsourced. Secondly, even if the information in it is true, listing non-notable crime victims like this violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and is arguably a form of secondary victimisation of their families. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Robofish. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. This article is totally unreferenced, and most of the names do not have blue links. One significant point is that this article attributes a reason to the cause of sucide for all these people, and in doing so suggestes they are victims of crime. I also have my worries about the first external link which just seems to be a vehicle to make money.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not totally unreferenced. It already had a bunch of external links and I have started to add inline citations, stating with .  That's an encyclopedia which lists many of the names here.  The topic is therefore encyclopedic, notable and passes WP:LISTN. Warden (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One inline citation added after I made my comment. The external links are not reliable enough for this list, each entry should need to be referenced. The first link is extremely unreliable for this, as it is an attempt to sell a book.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The second external link which has been used to write this list seems unreliable as several of items have been removed by editors for various reasons, including the deaths not being attributed to bullying. As such there is no cite to back up the majority of the list.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete One - it is a neologism from the start. Two - it names minor children who are victims. Three - most of them are clear BLP1E as far as their own notability is concerned. Four - it is unreferenced - and any sources used should refer to "bullycide" to be remotely allowable. Five - Need to demonstrate how great of a problem it is is a reason having zero weight on Wikipedia. With zero policy based rationales for keeping, and at least four policy based rationales for deletion, the choice is a Homer Simpson moment. Collect (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a reference to an encyclopedia which has an entry for Bullycide. My arguments are certainly policy-based and add WP:PRESERVE to the list to make sure.  The attempts to WP:STEAM this are outrageous.  How is it that this mob has just rushed in?  Who has been canvassing? Warden (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A notice on WP:BLPN pointing out gross violations of WP:BLP policy isn't canvassing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's blatant canvassing because it is apparent that the !votes this has attracted are not neutral. They are not well-informed either, making numerous factual errors and mis-statements.  They are just turning the discussion, which was previously quite quiet, into a train-wreck. Warden (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think what I did was canvassing, report the matter at WP:ANI. I could do with a laugh... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am curious, Warden - how do you tell which !votes are "not neutral" in this discussion? VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We can start with the ones that use language like "out of your fucking minds" and "insanely". Warden (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Insanely: adverb. To a great degree; very much. Used in context, it was not directed at any editor. I stand by my statement that an unreferenced list that presents, as fact, a significant number of suicides of minors as the fault of a person or persons is an "insanely obvious" BLP violation. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am minded to speedy delete this immediately and would have done so already had I found it prior to this deletion nomination. Our own article, Bullycide, sums up the problem well: Legal analysts criticise the term because it links a cause with an effect under someone else's control. This list implicitly accuses, largely without any sourcing, other individuals of bearing some responsibity for the death of another. While none of the alleged bullies are named in this article, I quickly found examples in the list where there had been no criminal case brought and, in at least example, where one alleged bully had been tried but acquitted. Given the paucity of sources, I wonder how many other such examples there are in this article. CIreland (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:IAR and my speedy tag. Once the insanely obvious BLP violation is removed, we can discuss if there are enough crimes identified in reliable sources as "bullycides" to merit a similar, adequately referenced, list. VQuakr (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete What could anyone learn from this, except how to find the victim's families and troll them (provided they even exist; hard to tell with these sources)? Ridiculous word, too. What do we call it when a bully is killed? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note. I've just deleted one person from this list on the grounds that they seem to still be alive. I don't suppose anyone wishes to contest this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Update I have added several sources and the list has been boiled down by another editor to entries which are blue links or have sources. In working briefly on the list, it was apparent that sources are readily available for such entries - it's just a matter of doing the work.  There are numerous books out there which discuss the problems of bullying in school and which use these examples as case histories.  The topic therefore satisfies WP:LISTN.  Many or most of the cases are from the 1990s or before and so cannot be considered recent deaths.  I'm going to bed now.  Good night. Warden (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who removed all the unsourced/unlinked entries. Contrary to your assertion above sources are not readily available for all the remaining entries. Going through them, I am finding around half to be flat wrong. A number of others are unclear, at best. CIreland (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now finished going through what's left. It's no longer quiet so huge a BLP nightmare but should still be deleted. CIreland (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The cases I looked at mostly seem to stand up. Anyway, I have added a case from 1877 which was quite a big deal in its day.  This puts the matter into a proper historical perspective.  Recentism should not disrupt the work of building an encyclopedia which, by its comprehensive nature, must include the numerous tragedies and disasters which beset us. Warden (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have learned one thing going through those entries - very few, if any, cases of suicide following bullying are so simple as to be attributable to a single cause, as this list attempts to do. I doubt things were much different in the nineteenth century. CIreland (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Holy sparks, an unsourced list of people who were allegedly involved in felony crimes? This is an epic coatrack and a BLP nightmare waiting to happen. WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:WTAF come to mind, assuming we're so irresponsible as to ignore WP:BLP and let this stand. It should have been speedied by a sysop on sight. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The referenced book about "bullycide" is self-published. The term is a neologism associated with a couple of self-published websites and a small group of people. The construction of the neologism strongly implies that a crime has been committed when a suicide occurs and bullying is identified as a contributing cause. As others have pointed out, such tragedies almost always have multiple causes. I see real BLP issues here, both for the families of those who died, and those accused (perhaps falsely in some cases) of culpability in these deaths.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Probably a notable phenomenon, but this really should be an article rather than a list - particularly because the causes of a suicide are generally not so simple as to be able to be boiled down to "he/she was bullied," and at any rate, proving the causation of a suicide is fraught with BLP issues. Stacking a bunch of names and declaring them all to be unambiguously and provably "bullycide" is inadvisable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Update I have done more work and all entries have reasonably good sources now. There are multiple substantial books from respectable publishers such as Routledge amongst these.  The only remaining issue seems to be the usage bullycide.  It gets some play in the sources and seems to have been around for over ten years.  But if we don't like it, it will be readily addressed by moving the page to another title such as list of suicides attributed to bullying. Warden (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems as though you're intentionally just ignoring all of the issues being raised here and simply spouting your typical mantra of "there are sources so we have no choice but to keep through my misinterpretation of policy." Could you please actually look through the arguments so you can see that they have nothing to do with a lack of sourcing, but rather concern more serious issues?--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - a neologism and a gross violation of BLP. This article was never a good idea. GiantSnowman 08:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per CIreland and FreeRangeFrog particularly. This truly is Wikipedia at its worst. And we know about it. And it's still there. I despair. Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - but change to List of student suicides, which opens up the scope.-- Auric    talk  10:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per everybody above. How was this ever thought to be a good idea. It would never be either comprehensive nor accurate. Kiltpin (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion has been provided.
 * The Tentinator says, "Only a few people in this list have articles". Individual items on list do not need to be independently notable or have their own dedicated articles.  See WP:LISTN.
 * AndyTheGrump says, "This is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy." This is so vague as to be meaningless.  What exactly is the BLP violation?
 * Robofish says, "violates all sorts of policies, notably WP:V and WP:BLP (at least in spirit)." Not all content requires inline citations.  Only quotations, and material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged requires citations.  And if you want citations, you can just add them.  I'm sure most of the content is verfiable.  Whatever isn't can be removed.  But that's not a valid reason for deletion.  That can be worked out through the normal editing process.
 * Martin451 says, "WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies". But WP:NOTMEMORIAL actually says we should not memorialize deceased friends, relatives and acquaintances.  Which editor(s) has friends and family members on this list?  WP:NOTMEMORIAL only requires WP:GNG be satisfied.  Sadly, no one has based an argument on whether the article meets Wikipedia notability requirements.  Since noboday has raised this, there's nothing to rebut and the default is to keep.
 * Collect says, "One - it is a neologism from the start." The title may use a neologism, but there's no reason why the article can't be renamed to something more encyclopedic. "Two - it names minor children who are victims." True, but I'm not sure what the problem is.  WP:BLP only applies to living people and the recently deceased.  Certainly, someone who died decades ago is not considered recently deceased.  No one is seriously suggesting that we delete Anne Frank, right?  "Three - most of them are clear BLP1E as far as their own notability is concerned." BLP1E applies to standalone biographies, not to events or lists.
 * In any case, I stopped reading the !votes at this point. It's clear that some editors don't like the article, but nobody has presented a valid reason for deletion.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You want a reason to delete this? How about that it makes crude assertions of fact - that these are "people driven to suicide by bullying" - when the sources simply cannot support such simplistic and unqualified assertions. Suicide is a complex issue, and deserves proper encyclopaedic treatment, rather than facile and obnoxious list-mongering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump: So, you are saying that no scholarly research has ever been conducted by sociologists, psychologists, or psychiatrists regarding this topic? That's a pretty extraordinary claim.  Do you think you can back up that claim by reliable sources?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you usually resort to spouting complete and utter bollocks in AfD discussions? Where have I ever suggested that there has been no scholarly research into the topic. Nowhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seriously, you need to ask why?  It's violates BLP by implying that people who have not been convicted of causing deaths caused deaths. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly where in the article text are specific people named who are implied to have caused these deaths? Please list specific examples and I'll remove them myself if they are not reliably sourced.  Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary for people to be named in the article for there to be a BLP violation. People are named in the references, some of whom may be people falsely accused of bullying. Family members are named in the references. The very title of the article (and any alternate title proposed so far) implies that the "bullies" are criminally liable for these deaths. I hate bullying, and have since my childhood over a half a century century ago. But even accused bullies are entitled to BLP protection. Perhaps List of suicides where an accused bully of the victim has been tried and convicted in a court of law for culpability in the death might pass muster. Otherwise, no.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP doesn't apply outside Wikipedia. This is a novel interpretation that I've never heard before.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because a person's name is only given outside Wikipedia doesn't mean that BLP is being applied outside Wikipedia, if the on-Wikipedia information is enough to uniquely specify the person. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Which entry provides enough on-Wikipedia information to uniquely identify a specific person? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be in the Wikipedia article itself, as dubious references in the article contain this information. It is a package. For example, the last current reference in the article is to a blog on HuffPo with a title of "His Name Was Steven: A 13-Year-Old Victim of Bullycide", which lists Steven's parents by name. Since when are blogs "reliable sources" for calling something "bullycide"?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328: I'm sorry, but I've tried to figure out what you're saying. Let me get this straight. You're saying that WP:BLP doesn't apply outside Wikipedia, but the only way to know that this is a BLP violation is to look at websites outside Wikipedia, and that the BLP violation is somebody's parents don't know the name of their own child is?  Seriously, if there was a bona fide BLP violation, it should be easy to explain.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is impossible to get a complete list of those who died and even harded to find confirmation on their reason for suicide.  This could unleash particularly bad BLP problems.  I could see some minor controversy sprining up where some individual or journalist looks at Wikipedia for a list of bullycides and copies down the information, only for others to be outraged that someone else was or wasn't included.  As the article implies it is a complete list with certainty in the causes of death, it cannot be considered reliable.  Marechal Ney (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just added, so people will know it will likely never be a complete list.-- Auric    talk  16:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for many of the stated reasons, including BLP issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Niteshift36: What exactly are the BLP issues? It's difficult to understand what your objection is without explicit details.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of examples of issues cited already in this discussion. I've given my reason and know that I will not convince you otherwise, so I don't intend to waste time trying to. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Niteshift36: I'm not asking you to convince me. I'm asking you to tell us what the BLP violation is.  So far, there have been several !votes which have claimed BLP violations, but no one has been able to explain what the supposed BLP violation is.  If you don't know what the BLP violation is either, there's little more we can do here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that I don't know what the violation is just because I don't choose to entertain your request is condescending and also ignores that fact that BLP was not the only reason I said delete. Next time you speak to me, AGF. On second thought, don't bother speaking to me because I won't respond to your baseless insinuations any longer. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The BLP violation is the accusation that the bullies are culpable for these deaths. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Stuartyeates: Which entry claims such an unsourced accusation against a specific person? And if one such entry exists, why does that mean that the entire article should be deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources referenced for each entry and the information in the linked to Wikipedia articles for these cases say bullying was the cause.  D r e a m Focus  06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Factually incorrect - see for instance Suicide of Amanda Todd, which clearly states that the investigation into the causes of her death is ongoing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the rest of that article. She told everyone it was because of bullying before she killed herself.  There is no reasonable doubt about that.  That article is categorized as Category:Bullycide, Category:Female suicides, Category:High school students who committed suicide, Category:Victims of cyber-bullying, category:Suicides by hanging in Canada, and Category:Suicides in British Columbia.   D r e a m Focus  17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not base Wikipedia content on what you consider 'reasonable doubt'. As for the categories, we should probably get rid of them too, but that isn't what is being discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We based it on what reliable sources say, and all the news coverage said it was because of suicide from bullying.  D r e a m Focus  17:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was because of suicide? I don't think that anyone is disputing suicide was the cause of death. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant to say "suicide from bullying". Fixed that now for clarity.   D r e a m Focus  22:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And on what policy-based-grounds should we ignore the source that states that there is an ongoing investigation into the causes of Todd's death? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article list the various things that happened to her with references to reliable sources. She mentioned these things in her YouTube video.  Those things are clearly acts of bullying.    D r e a m Focus  23:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And how exactly does that justify ignoring a source that states that there is an ongoing investigation into the causes of Todd's death? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Niteshift36: Ummmm...wow. Asking someone to explain what the BLP violations are is "condescending" and a failure to "AGF"? Seriously??  Wow.  Honestly, I don't know how to respond when you won't tell us what the problem is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this article. at least in the form I find it this morning. The concept is highly notable and likely to become more so especially in terms of the "cyberbullying" concept and means of online interaction so prevalent in our times. My strongest objection to the article is the titular term "bullycide" itself in terms of some of the arguments above (perhaps need to add a caveat regarding the legal critcism of term); however, it is consistent with the article so named and I'm not sure I could come up with a better term. While more arguments for the delete side cite BLP, the arguments of the keep voters seem more thoughtful & nuanced, which to me makes it more or less a wash, but vigilant watchers of this article must ensure that it does not exceed its current, restrained, scope. Boogerpatrol (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: There are about 29 things wrong with this p  b  p  02:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could change the disclaimer which Auric added, to read: "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness or common human decency. You can help by nuking it from high planetary orbit, and periodically returning to check that the ashes have not reanimated."? Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Long, complicated discussion above. Ultimately, I don't see how this article is workable. Bondegezou (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2013 (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.

-- edit conflict
 * Comment -- The most important principle here, in my opinion, is that we don't delete articles on valid, notable topics, even if we consider the current state of those articles weak. Instead we try to improve them.  In my opinion, since reliable sources have been paying more attention to bullying, to suicides triggered by bullying, have commented that there seems to be an alarming increase in bullying, and in suicides triggered by bullying, articles that cite those reliable sources can be written, that fully comply with all our policies.  Geo Swan (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The tragic events triggered by the bullying of Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons, two recent Canadian deaths on this list, were (1) covered very extensively; and that coverage extended to drawing parallels with similar cases, and commentary on the broader issues -- therefore, in my opinion, if those individuals had somehow survived, we would not consider BLP1E applying. Geo Swan (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)