Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per WP:NOT. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A list of victims of a school massacre certainly cannot be notable can it? Perhaps the few who are can obviously keep their respective articles, but otherwise, a deletion or merge is necessary. WP:NOT, and perhaps even WP:NOT seem to back my nomination. Jmlk 1  7  04:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wiki is not a memorial, in that wiki does not exist to catalog everyone's family and friends who died. However, these people died in a very notable event, several of whom are themselves notable. I would require much stronger reasoning to go for delete, and two previous failed noms seem to support keep. erc talk/contribs 05:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument that a notable tragedy makes each of the victims notable enough to be listed by name would extend logically to a tsunami which killed 200,000 people or a war that killed 20,000,000 people, wouldn't it? Ready for a list of people killed in World War 2? Edison (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The event is notable. I initially felt that a merge was necessary, but the main article is already long enough to warrant this list as a separate article. Parkerjl (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT . Memorial purposes are the only reason for listing these names as if they were inscribed on a monument. We do not need a list of these unfortunate victims any more than a list of everyone killed in a plane crash, hurricane, tornado or a fire. The catastrophe or mass murder may have been significant and notable, but the random victims generally are not when they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. If they took actions which affected the course of events, as in inciting or attacking the killer, or holding the door shut to give others time to escape, then their role should be stated in the main article. Edison (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Keep. as per above. Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOT. Really. The second line of which states that people being honored must be notable in some way, which I think the victims here collectively are. MEMORIAL is meant to prevent Wikipedia from becoming littered with Memorials to Great-Grand Uncle Jimbo, not to prevent notable tragedies from being recorded. B figura  (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:NOT. As the prior !vote stated: The Event (the "notable tragedies") are notable, most of the people do not acquire notability for being peripherally involved (that would be inheireted). Another supporting argument keeping this Memorial at bey would come from the spirit of WP:BLP1E. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  09:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - having read the 2 previous discussions I am persuaded that it is either merge or keep. Having looked at the (long) article, merge would lead to a necessity to break out a separate article not unlike this one. (A list of people does not confer or imply individual notability.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The incident itself is, no doubt, notable. I don't think that a list of the victims violates WP:NOT. Reason: This list is not primarily of memorial purpose. It gives real faces to a horrible crime. That is, in my view, notable. --Abrech (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While people that are involved in a notable event don't necessarily gain notability themselves, I believe that these did, due to the nature of the event. I agree with many above that a merge would be appropriate; however, the main article is too long as it is, so it should stay. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would your line of logic then allow 'victims' of a notable bridge collapse' to be similarly listed? How about a notable Roof collapse? The nature of the event makes the event notable, does it not? What you (and some others) are suggesting is an exeception to the rule because this event was special... but...Every event is special to someone. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  05:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOT. "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Being shot by a madman does not entail notability.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But these are not subjects of an article, merely mentioned in a list. No-one is claiming that each is individually notable. This is a red herring. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is a Wikilawyer, by asserting that the "list" is the subject in question, rather than the "victims of the Columbine High School massacre." Lists in any case don't assert notability.--WaltCip (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wiki isn't a memorial, nor are these people notable except for the tragic way in which they died. Given they are notable for that event only, the only rationale for me to keep would be if listed in the page for the event. Minkythecat (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is nothing here that is not already in the main article Frog47 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this can be anything other than a memorial. The people listed are only tragically notable for being victims of this massacre - but Wikipedia is the place to list things which are notable in an encyclopedic sense. Even if this is merged into the main article, I think the names and pictures wouldn't add much information. --Minimaki (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Again, I don't think this list is suitable under "Not a Memorial". The victims can be listed in the main article, but otherwise the event is notable, but the victims (sorry) aren't. And just for the record I'm not in favor of listing the victims of 9/11 in Wikipedia other, except for the fact that a number of them achieved notability before and as a result of actions on 9/11. But we have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise we're going to have people wanting to create lists of victims everytime something bad happens, whether it be a bad bus crash or a school shooting i.e. Dawson College, Montreal, etc. 23skidoo (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, particularly since there is already a list of the victims in the main article. I can understand the feelings of those who want to keep the article, but this is exactly why there is a rule that says that "Wikipedia is not a memorial."   Separate lists of victims are not to be made, ever.  Although that may seem like a harsh rule, these 13 persons are not supposed to be considered more worthy of a memorial than 13 people killed in a bus wreck in Zimbabwe, or in a car bombing in Baghdad. Mandsford (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONG MERGE If any of you have run into me before, you probably know how sensetive I am about the whole ordeal there. Defineitly a merge. KC109. (I'm in the process of making a new sig) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KC109 (talk • contribs)
 * If you have run into me before, you know how sensitive I am about making Wikipedia a valuable resource.--WaltCip (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm... yeah... ok... I don't see how this taints that at all. Merge to main article. Definitley not the whole memorial policy thing. Why do we have the Virginia Tech list still up? P.S. nom... that list isn't going anwhere... fourth nomination. (Still working on that sig).


 * Redirect to the main Columbine High School massacre page. Other than the birthdates, just about all the information on the list of victims page is already on the main page, where it belongs.  I am neutral about whether the birthdates should be merged to the main page.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not about whether or not the page is a memorial. It is about whether or not the event is notable, and there is no question it is. I can see it being merged, if the information is kept intact. Certainly, no information should be deleted whatsoever. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to the main article. The information is quite relevant there, per Brian Waterman. Ezratrumpet (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While this is sad, Wikipedia is not a memorial. The event itself is notable and more than adequately covered in other articles. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists (discriminate, notable, and verifiable). Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. This list belongs on the main article re: the event, and not on its own separate article.  Since the list is already there, this should be deleted. Justinthebull (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly per WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NOT does not apply. This policy tells: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. These people are not my or anyone else here relatives, and they are notable as victims of a notable terrorism act. Biophys (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why it does not apply. Please explain more. A/ Your saying that nobody ever related to one of the listed victims has never, and will never, ever edit this article?? B/ Your saying that these people are notable for something other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge back to main article - most of the victims are not likely to be notable enough to warrant having their own articles. The main object of lists is to identify notable subjects for articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Yahel   Guhan ''' 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Put into main article. Elluminate (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Frog47, adds nothing really new to the main article.-- JForget 22:44, 22 April 2008 (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.