Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the American Civil War


 * 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 of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

List of victims of the American Civil War
Victims? Besides that, this is an impossible list. Far too many died. And why stop here? How about List of victims of the Hundred Years War and List of victims of the Crusades? And where does it stop? Is Abraham Lincoln a "victim" of the Civil War? How about John Wilkes Booth? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Edwardian 06:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC) My main objection is with the title. If the title is change to List of notable casualties of the American Civil War or something similar, then Keep per Mgm. -- Edwardian 22:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate and WP is not a memorial. Gazpacho 06:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for being unencyclopedic. Tuf-Kat 07:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: It must be a prank.  I may be a victim of the Civil War.  So is Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel. Geogre 13:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the title may require renaming, the lead clearly states it only includes notable individuals (all of whom have wikipedia articles), the list is informative and contains references. I would drop "dying as a result of actions related to the American Civil War" and only include people directly killed in battle to keep it manageable and verifiable. It is generally hard to say if an action directly contributed to someone's death. - Mgm|(talk) 15:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This would be an appropriate Category, but the sheer size of an accurate list would be daunting. If it ends up being kept, I agree that victims is an inappropriate title. Hal Jespersen 16:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Mgm: change the title and only include those with verifiable, about whom there is historic information. Note that presently everybody listed on this page already has their own WP article.  --FRS 18:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete- vague, impossible to maintain. Reyk 21:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Any interested editors should take a copy of this article in case it's deleted and create a category; this seems to me to exactly the sort of task for which categories are intented. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Categorize and Delete better off to Categorize that list some how a encyclopedic list but still impossible to maintain as a list --JAranda &#124; watz sup 22:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Impossible to finish, and I don't see how this could be useful... -- WB 23:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Rename and Keep. Per Mgm. -- WB 00:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Dpbsmith. Ejrrjs | What? 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Abstain There has to be a better title for it, in any case. Ejrrjs | What? 19:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep per Kappa, lists and category. Klonimus 15:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, if it gets edited to what MGM is suggesting. In any case, I agree that this is a good instance to use categories. Jacqui  ★ 00:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete if its just a list of notable people with Wikipedia biographies then a category would be more appropriate. PatGallacher 01:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize. MCB 06:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Listing the means of death and the date of their demise is something a category cannot do. Categorizing would lead to loss of useful information. Also, Wikipedia is NOT a memorial refers to the writing of articles on non-notable people not a list of people who deserve an article and already have one. - Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, With over hald a million deaths it sounds silly. It might be renamed to List of notable victims of the American Civil War, but then the question of "what is notable" would arise. Mariano (t/c) 10:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If "what is notable" is a problem, why do people keep trying to determine it on Afd? Kappa 11:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Notable people are people who deserve an article themselves. There's plenty of precendent to determine whether a person is notable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, categorizing would lead to a loss of information. Kappa 11:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How? I haven't checked every entry but as nearly as I can tell the information in the list merely duplicates information available in existing articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK it would lead to information being hidden inside articles instead of accessible at a glance. Users should be able to select articles e.g. by rank or location of death without having to click on every link to find it. Kappa 13:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dottore So 14:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, textbook category. A list provides no annotation worth having in context. Lord Bob 20:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. The use of "victims" is problematic but maybe fixable.  The problem is that this is, in my opinion, a meaningless list.  It is a list of people notable in the Civil War filtered for those who died in it.  The act of dying does not make them more or less notable than the person who lived an extra year and died by falling off a horse.  We already have categories of people who are relevant to the Civil War.  We also have masses of statistics on deaths during the war.  I don't see how this semi-random collection of datapoints adds anything to the reader's experience.  Rossami (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zoe. - brenneman (t) (c)  03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. - TDS  (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, with all due respect to MgM - I can see where he's coming from, but I'd have thought that a category for casualties of the American civil war would handle that better - obviusly only those who pass WP:BIO will get a mention, which seems right. Non-notable people whose maner of death was particularly notable can be mentioned in the main article. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - a category if anything --Doc ask? 11:09, 19 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.