Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks


 * 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   no consensus. I can't seem to find a consensus on this. I discounted many of the keeps as obvious recentism keeps, but the delete side is worried about the list in the article, which can be removed fairly easily. Most of the information doesn't seem to meet WP:NOT, which is a rationale for most of the people who wants to delete this article. WP:NOT, was created for if the page is obviously a memorial, which this isn't. The list of victims I'll remove though as that seems to be the concern here. Discuss a merge in the talk page. Secret account 18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

List of victims of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

With some trepidation I am nominating this article for deletion because Wikipedia is not a memorial. I appreciate the strong sentiment that the atrocities have caused and the grief of the families, friends and others affected, but we are writing an encyclopaedia. Such a list fails to meet our established criteria, and, understanding the strong feelings that this will generate, I am asking editors to leave emotion aside and concentrate on what is and is not encyclopaedic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing 0

 * Strong keep This article is important as it lists the names of the victims of a brutal terrorist attack. It's true Wikipedia is not a memorial, but the names and nationalities of those who died in the attack are as notable as the attack itself. Articles throughout wikipedia provide the names of the victims of other terrorist attacks and crimes (for example, the Brooklyn Bridge shooting and the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting. Why should this article be any different. Yes, the number of victims was much lower in the other articles, but the number of victims shouldn't make any difference.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Delete or Merge to the main page for notable people per wikipedia policy. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  00:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: This kind of list are not at per with Wikipedia standards, name of impt personalities can be added in da main article. Moreover this kind of list should not be encouraged takin in consideration of the sentiments of the relatives of the deceased. To take a precendent, the list of victims of Virginia Tech massacare was deleted. 220.227.133.250 (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rework - If we list every dead, injured AND safe person this article will become very cluttered very very quickly. If the article is edited/reworked to make it more like Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings then I would say this article could be kept. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree wholeheartedly with Kuzwa here. Reworking in that manner would be encyclopaedic.  That would cause me to withdraw my nomination.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - With different sources quoting different numbers for casualties, it is nearly impossible to determine what is accurate or not. This page serves as a (perhaps temporary) accounting of what actually happened; or at least what has been reported and confirmed.  I agree that once accurate numbers are determined for casualties and their nationalities are determined there is no longer any needed for this article, but until then it is possibly the only place on the internet where this information is available.  As for the argument that this is not "encyclopaedic", not being tied to annual releases of hard bound books perhaps allows for or even demands that the definition be expanded where it is inline with the spirit of an encyclopaedia. Aepryus (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep for now. This is a rapidly changing situation and there is no point in getting rid of the page now. Wait for awhile until this settles out, then we will have a better idea of how to rework the page, but in the meantime it is a useful and I would say has at least as much encyclopedic value as other articles, e.g., List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. Remember (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - No reason to rush to get rid of this. Let things settle down for a while and we can re-evaluate if appropriate. KConWiki (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kindly no. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep by current standards. Casualty lists for events of this nature have some merit and they are not necessarily memorials if dealt with in the correct way. The death toll is rising continually, with more and more nations becoming involved. I've heard news reports of this being described as both 2008's and India's 9/11. 9/11 has a similar page (which I do not object to as I believe it has historical relevance). I wonder had this occurred in, say, Chicago or Los Angeles would this be disputed (with Washington and New York already covered)? We cannot possibly give in to continental bias... whether an incident of this scale occurs in New York, London, Mumbai, Sydney, Paris, Istanbul, Tokyo, Lagos, Sao Paolo, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Beijing, Moscow or Jakarta to cover quite a broad area, there cannot be discrimination based upon geographical location or the amount of editors located within the boundaries of those cities. The notability of the event must be taken into question, not where it happened. Anyone who has been following this, I would imagine, ought to see it for it is - unusual and perhaps unique. And, to end, I can think of no specifically personal, emotional or sentimental reason for my view of it - I am neither Indian nor British nor any of the other nations involved thus far - I just see it as it is. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 03:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And, with all due respect to an above user and the case which they refer to, one day at a university (even an American one) is not the equivalent of even one day, never mind the current three, in a supercity. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 03:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse my persistence. I suggest a title change from "List of victims of" to "Casualties of", which sounds more encyclopedic and was the consensus reached on the 9/11 article. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 03:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is the events that are notable, not the individual victims who are mainly non-notable per WP:ONEEVENT. Also, listing casualties, some with no more than a graze, among the dead is disrepectful. WWGB (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but Merge to the main article, per above. This incident has just occurred, therefore, the number of fatalities may change from time to time. After all, some of the people who died during the attacks were notable. As a result of that, this information is encyclopedic. Of course, we have to make sure that this list does not turn into a memorial. The best solution now would be to remove the names of all the non-notable victims. Acs 4b  T C U 05:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, per nom. I am also not happy with the way the "Casualties of Madrid" article has been dealt with. If we were to go by that article's standards, the amount of info left could easily be merged into the main article, which is what I suggest be done in both cases. The 911 article handles the information in a much different way, eschewing lists of names (for obvious reasons) but it both has the encyclopedic qualities that "Madrid" embodies while having enough info to justify a separate article, instead of a merge. Also, don't even start with the continental bias BS. Americans aren't stuck so far up their asses. Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (4th nomination) Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre (2nd nomination). Mourning the dead is not something that Wikipedia should make a spectacle of. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge a summary to November 2008 Mumbai attacks. McWomble (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per user Remember's comments.Megatron85 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Other than a C&P of some other user's page to his page, the above user's only edits have been to this discussion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Axem Titanium's views say the reasons well.
 * Delete; most of the individuals listed are not notable. It is the event which is notable, and that already has an article. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Casualities of November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Such lists are not encouraged but there is significance of noting particular casualties in the event. These include some personnel from security forces who have been significantly covered and other such victims. And considering that the main article size is 70kb after just three days, I'm not sure if it is efficient in future perspective to merge two articles. I'm, however, against every trivial person being mentioned. I also feel that it was rather improper to list this article for deletion at such an early stage. This is clearly a very much live event which is still unfolding. If the article remains truly trivial in the future and can be accommodated in the article then such merge may be undertaken. LeaveSleaves talk 11:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Give it few weeks, it's not a reality show here. Freearmy (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Casualities of November 2008 Mumbai attacks, this article is not a memorial, but an article with more information on the Mumbai attacks. Delete the long list of names though. Epson291 (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing 1

 * Merge and redirect. Some of the notable names on the list are not yet mentioned in the article, but should be and the casualty count seems more up to date in the table for this list as well. Instead of deletion, the section and the list should be combined. -= Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge or improve. This article is grossly outdated and incomplete. If we can edit it to include all the victims and verify all the information, then the list could be kept. Otherwise, it would have to be merged per WP:MEMORIAL, and also we don't have an article on the victims of 9/11. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 15:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Outdated? I'm not sure I understand your concern. The event is barely more than 72 hrs old. The article itself was created 36 hrs ago. LeaveSleaves talk 15:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Userfy... until the death toll is final. Jonathan321 (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, or possibly merge without the names. WP is not a memorial, nor will it ever be. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as of now - it can always be broken out again later if it's considered necessary. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 18:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, and make mention of the notable victims and the nationalities of all victims in the main article (we already do both). -- Biruitorul Talk 19:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons stated above. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  21:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it might be better to state with precision which of the reasons "stated above" you base your argument on, in order to give the closing admin an idea of your actual argument.  I'm sure you are aware that this is not a ballot, but depends upon a consensus of reasoned argument within the policies and guidelines.  At present we understand that you wish the article to be kept, but not why  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to "Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks" as per Candlewicke's comments above. Jagged 85 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep in the next few days it will become clear about the number and names of victims of the attacks. Several of the individuals listed are quite prominent and they have separate wiki entries of their own. —Roman888 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename as Casualties of November 2008 Mumbai attacks, and must have a structure something like Casualties of the September 11 attacks, not all individuals should be mentioned, only "notable" ones.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - maybe rework to make it more of a summary. There were initial claims that no Britons or US citizens had been killed, which isn't true.  The numbers are significant, including the fact that most of them were Indian and some came from countries not concerned with Indian affairs.--GwydionM (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to November 2008 Mumbai attacks. As other have said, Wiki is not a memorial and most victims do not pass the notability guidelines. Thus it's better to keep it to the summarized section of the main article.--Boffob (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks as stated above. There's no problem with creating a breakout article, it just has to keep an encyclopedic format.  Joshdboz (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep by current standards.  With different sources quoting different numbers for casualties, it has been nearly impossible to determine what is accurate or not.  This page serves as a (perhaps temporary) accounting of what actually happened.  And, rename to Casualties of November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Fconaway (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note to all those suggesting the rename: "the" should be included for it to make sense in English. Joshdboz (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks - an expanded that will include information about other casualties as well. Lists of non-notable people dead in a particular incident are non-notable. 220.227.179.4 (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep by current standards.  The attacks and its victims are notable. Dabackgammonator (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? All of them? Why? -- Biruitorul Talk 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Keep or rename per above with additional context. This is not an article about an individual victim.  This is an article about the total of people who lost their lives in this tragic and historic event, and each entry in the list shows something about what unfolded during these attacks.  This is a subarticle of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks which is in its own space for length reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to Casualties of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks per Candlewicke and refocus for significance per LeaveSleaves. A list of every individual may be inappropriate, but the nature of the attack and the high number of notable casualties makes this subtopic important. I don't see deletion as the answer here. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing 2

 * Delete or Rework - Casualties of the September 11 attacks is an appropriate treatment, this exhaustive list is not. Fails because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of lists WP:INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia is not a memorial WP:NOTMEMORIAL  Josh Parris 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rework - most of the information given (e.g. names and ages) is not in itself notable. A summary of notable information (total casualties from each location, by nationality, etc.) could go in the main article or a reworked version of this article. Barnabypage (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - the article as it stands is not a memorial (with salutory information about the victims), but rather gives important information about who was killed, and the mix of nationalities.
 * Comment. Many of the votes for delete seem to be misunderstanding policy.  The WP:NOTMEMORIAL rule is as follows: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. This is not a page about somebody's departed friend or relative.  This is a page about a historical mass murder.  And the notability rules says "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content.".  That means each member of the list doesn't need to pass WP:N, no more than every noun in a prose article does.  Only the totality of the article needs to pass WP:N. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Improve and Merge - It would be wrong to ask for deletion of the information calling it a "Memorial" because its not a memorial in strict sense of the word. I believe that article content should be kept, improved upon and merged into the original incident article. --Road Ahead  =Discuss= 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unencyclopedic. This has no place on Wikipedia. Besides, isn't there already a memorial wiki of some sort? bob rulz (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Many of the casualties are notable, quite encyclopedic CS2020 (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, only around a dozen of the casualties are notable (ie, have articles here), something like 3% of the total. They, along with the casualty table, can easily be integrated into the main article, which indeed they are, quite nicely. -- Biruitorul Talk 15:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename including the detailed casualty lists for the time being, per Aepryus above. Jheald (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I second the comment above. The policy regards "friends and relatives". There are no policy grounds for deletion. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - Merge this article in November 2008 Mumbai attacks but please do not delete it. The contents are important in world history and these should be part of the actual article, i.e. November 2008 Mumbai attacks only. --Singh6 (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge – Merge into "November 2008 Mumbai attacks" in the form of a table stating the nationalities of all victims. Mention by name only those victims that have their own Wikipedia articles. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. - The repeatedly quoted policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL certainly applies, as does the closely-related WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Notable people can be handled in their separate articles, but I simply do not see the permissible (by which I mean not violating one of the policies I just listed) encyclopedic value of the names of each person to suffer injury or death in this tragedy. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge per others. Doesn't seem to have encylopedic value, and any that it might have can be fit into the main article, which has more than enough room to spare. why create a sub article if the parent is not at splitting size? Any reason other than tragedy competition?Yobmod (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no value of listing the names and other personal data of the victims. There's no interest in the names of most of the victims. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:34, 4 December 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.