Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of passengers and crew aboard the final flight of LZ 129 Hindenburg


 * 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. !Votes for keep do not advance a policy based reason. The event was certainly notable, as many keep !voters have pointed out, but none have proven this list is notable in itself. v/r - TP 03:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

List of passengers and crew aboard the final flight of LZ 129 Hindenburg

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a memorial or a place for an indiscriminate collection of information, the three noteworthy passengers are already mentioned in Hindenburg disaster. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete As above. The link in the article (?in the Hindnberg article?) provides a full list if anybody wants all the names.TheLongTone (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Strong Keep - The Hindenburg disaster was an extremely notable one, and though this is not a memorial, the article can be kept as long as it does not adopt an overly memorializing tone ("His loss will be remembered forever." etc.) Though the passengers may not have independent notability, nevertheless, the fact that so many people died certainly creates a collective notability warranting this list. Besides, the nom's logic that this is indiscriminate does not hold. The importance of this disaster shows that the article is not one of the ebbs and flows of daily life, but a unique and verifiable event. Only if we documented (or attempted to document) information which does not warrant significant coverage in reliable sources would it fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is a degree of significance to these deaths. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 00:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete NOT MEMORIAL is a good policy,and one of the defining ones of any encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep highly notable disaster, roughly on par with the Titanic and 9/11 in terms of publicity (not impact), both of whose victims/passengers are listed here, (Passengers of the RMS Titanic). It may appear to be a memorial, but since its listing those who survived as well, its not.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Major historic disaster. This list is focused and limited in size, criteria for inclusion are clear, likely to be of interest or utility to WP users. Definitely could use better sourcing, but this is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons set out by the preceding two editors. WP:NOTMEMORIAL really isn't relevant here, as this isn't an attempt to memorialize anyone (even though some of the people on the list did die). Also, I know we should be cautious about drawing comparisons to other articles, but I can't help but note that Wikipedia has lists of characters for every comic book, TV show, etc., and those are not going to be deleted &mdash; I think we should bear that in mind in considering the worthiness of this list relating to a truly major historical event. Finally, I don't think WP:NOT is a problem here; this list doesn't fall into any of the enumerated categories. Terence7 (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Not Memorial - we do not make generally lists of people just because they died unless they are notable, Undue detail - those notable people in the crash are already noted in the main article without overlading it - no reason to Spinout. Per other stuff exists we should not be dragging in what unrelated articles cover.  That said, for related articles,   the R38, Dixmude, R101 and USS Akron (ZRS-4)  are none the worse for not naming the passengers whether they survived or not. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep While a lot of people will never have heard of the other accidents this one was a turning point in aviation history. Certainly that list of people is notable in its historic context. Agathoclea (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - this falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. As a table in the article on the Hindenburg accident itself, this works; as a stand-alone list, it does not. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of which it again would be a breakout due to the size of the list. Agathoclea (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Indiscriminate. Memorial. "outside the scope of WP". Yawn. All cookie-cutter objections. And Memorial is SYNTH, attempting to attribute a motivation to articles. A list of the dead is the very definition of a disaster. How in the hell can anyone ever prove that an article is commemorating something by listing it? Anarchangel (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Under what wikipedia is not: "A complete exposition of all possible details" - a list of the passengers and their occupations and age and other facts is Undue detail. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Another stupid rule, taken by WP:NOT editors out of its proper context in an ARB decision and unwisely taking the horrendous risk of forbidding completeness. However, most of the fault here, right now, is your vain attempt to SYNTHesize the aforementioned WP:NOT rule with the non sequitur of WEIGHT. Anarchangel (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  06:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Just to comment that a notable event doesnt mean that all the victims are notable and as has been said a list of non-notable passengers has no encyclopedic purpose. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I just don't see how the encyclopedia is improved by deleting this. It adds detail to the disaster. 86.** IP (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment because the normal consensus is not to fill wikipedia with lists of non-notable things, the same argument could be used to list all the people involved in every disaster and crime mentioned in wikipedia, I could understand some sentiment for a list of just the victims but to list everybody involved including survivors doesnt add any value. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Hindenberg disaster is notable, the list of people on it isn't. This makes no more sense than any indiscriminate list, be it of a tragedy or who attended a university.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not the place for lists of people who died in aviation disasters.Andrew Kurish (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate list, I find it extremely unconventional to dedicate a whole article to. The comparison with the Titanic's Passengers article is a hollow comparison - that had huge amounts of prose, on the conditions, circumstances, layout - while this is just a bulletin of names. If this had been developed to that extent, to be more than an indiscriminate list, I might not think this to be unworthy of a dedicated article onto itself; but right now, as a list onto itself and nothing more, I feel it is WP:Undue Weight. As mentioned by other editors, it'd be more suitable to a table in the main disaster article, if this is the totality to its extent. Kyteto (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge With The Hindenburg Disaster article. Airplanegod (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2012 (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.