Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of the November 2015 Paris 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 delete. The fundamental argument from the people arguing to delete was WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There is some question about whether that was intended to apply to individual people or mass events such as this; this issue was never authoritatively resolved.

In the end, even though AfD is not a vote, the delete arguments are running about 2:1 over keep. I don't see any fundamental flaws in the arguments on either side, so going with the weight of numbers seems like the only reasonable course of action. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not an obituary and a list of not otherwise notable victims shouldn't be provided. The rest of the content is present at November 2015 Paris attacks, on whose talk page there was repeated consensus not to list victims (1, 2, 3). LjL (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

December 12

 * Delete: -- I appreciate the pain staking efforts and hard work that went into creating the article, especially the partial list of victims, but I agree with @LjL. Recommend creating a blogsite dedicated to the victims' memory. Quis separabit?  15:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't want to take sides, but curious and found plenty of similar lists: List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre, List of victims of Nazism, List_of_victims_and_survivors_of_Auschwitz, List_of_victims_of_the_Our_Lady_of_the_Angels_school_fire, List of victims of Sobibór, Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks.... Tom Ruen (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In cases such as this, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very weak argument, because it's unsurprising that on an emotional topic such as (mass) deaths people would create articles even when they are against policy, and the articles can be niche enough to pass below the radar. Some of your examples also don't apply: List of victims of Nazism is a explicitly a list of notable victims (it obviously can't list every victim of Nazism), which is acceptable; List of victims and survivors of Auschwitz is neither here nor there, since it admits to being "fragmentary" without specifying what the criteria for inclusion in the list are (so what is it, a completely random sample of victims?); finally, most of the articles that don't list notable victims (most victims having their own linked article is an indication) have their content or existence challenged with tags or on their talk pages (please check them). So, these are not good precedents. LjL (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all of them as well. - the WOLF  child  17:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

December 13

 * Delete: I see no blue-link entries in the list nor any probable blue-links. Fails WP:NLIST. Tom Ruen, WP:OSE; Nazism, Auschwitz and Sobibor lists are list of blue-links and hence perfectly valid. Rest others might someday also face the AfD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - A very expected AfD, I admit. Per WP:1E, the victims may not be individually notable for articles of their own, despite the fact that many had news reports dedicated to them (which were more than just trivial mentions), but the subject itself (compiling their names in a list, that is) is notable in its own right. Some examples include BBC, CNN, Toronto Star, Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, La Stampa, El Mundo, etc. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Fitzcarmalan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * Newspapers have different duties/intentions to compile such names. Encyclopaedias don't have to do that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that newspaper report on this isn't a strong indicator that it should be kept, while WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a stronger indicator that it should be discarded, as is consensus on the main article's talk page. LjL (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Firebrace (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But User:Fitzcarmalan's point it that the news coverage of these victims confers notability on them. I agree that in mass casualty events such at earthquakes, nightclub fires, and train wrecks, no notability is conferred on individual victims.  However, in the case of targeted terror - including those killed in Nazi death camps mentioned by User:Dharmadhyaksha - and in the case at hand, the fact that these people were targeted slaughter because they are in a category slated by an Islamist State to be intimidated into submission by mass killings makes their deaths notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No – they weren't killed because of who they are, but where they were. It was an indiscriminate attack on people of all backgrounds. Firebrace (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Was The Blitz indiscriminate because "people of all backgrounds" were killed?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Paris attacks were targeted at Parisians enjoying secular pleasures (music, dining in cafes alongside unveiled women, watching a soccer matches alongside unveiled women) defined as haram by the Islamic State in an infidel country (France) defined as an enemy by the Islamic State.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed they were, and their deaths, collectively, are indeed notable. But individual notability is not inherited from association with a notable event. -- The Anome (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial: we went through this with the 9-11 attacks. If we do this, where do we stop? I'm in complete sympathy with your intentions, but the way to do this is to create an online memorial website for these people, which you can do in far greater detail that would be allowed on Wikipedia, not to put it here: please see Wikia or other hosting facilities for how this might be done. Such a site could even be published as a book, which would put this into mankind's permanently archived record as a perpetual memorial. See WP:MEMORIAL and WP:OTHERSTUFF for more on this. -- The Anome (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MEMORIAL states the following: Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. As I said above, the subject itself seems to meet the GNG criteria. The individual names within the subject, however, don't. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. You wouldn't find a list of victims in a printed encyclopedia and it shouldn't be on here either. Firebrace (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment you wouldn't find 5,000,000 articles in a printed encyclopedia either, and yet here we are... Rklawton (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Alas, many of the articles are of poor quality. Firebrace (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I did a quick review of other mass shooting articles, and they contain victim lists. While I strongly support ignoring the fact that "other stuff exists" in most cases, the overwhelming consensus throughout Wikipedia appears to be to include a victims list - thereby rendering "other stuff" inapplicable. There is simply too much other stuff to ignore. Rklawton (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "The overwhelming consensus" on the very parent article of this spinout (November 2015 Paris attacks) was, as shown in the nomination, to avoid having any such victim list, and that consensus was, importantly, backed by policy. "Other stuff" isn't. LjL (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to not include a list in the article, though it wasn't unanimous, and it has no bearing here. Rklawton (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Overwhelming consensus doesn't need to be WP:UNANIMOUS. It definitely has bearing here, since this is clearly a WP:SPINOUT article of November 2015 Paris attacks. You cannot WP:GAME consensus by just creating a separate article. LjL (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed. This is a content fork, and the consensus discussion at the original article was not to include a list. Using content forks to get around consensus is not a good idea. -- The Anome (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. If you can't say it in prose it doesn't belong. Delete per wp:MEMORIAL.--TMCk (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment "If you can't say it in prose..." isn't a policy. Wikipedia contains many articles consisting of lists. Lists are fine. Rklawton (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not a policy. It's a common sense test on when the policy applies.--TMCk (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the shear number of articles that consist entirely of lists, it should be obvious that your argument is without merit. Rklawton (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh... You seem to (falsely) think that simply giving the shear number of other existing shit has merit as an argument despite not being backed up by any policy here? Strange.--TMCk (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Uhm, actually, stand-alone lists as a concept are perfectly covered by policy. That doesn't mean that this particular list has to be, though. LjL (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Only we're not talking about list-articles in general here.--TMCk (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, per policy, Wikipedia is not an obituary, even of particularly notable events of heinous nature. N2e (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the wording in WP:Memorial clearly does not apply in this case. The wording in Memorial applies to individuals. This isn't an article about any one individual. This is a list of individuals, and the list is quite significant. Rklawton (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The moment you name an individual of a group MEMORIAL does of course apply.--TMCk (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - we get it. You really, really want to keep this article. (With your bah-zillion comments here and counting...) But what kind of logic is that? The individuals don't count as individuals because they're on a "list"... of individuals?? Oh puh-leeeze... - the WOLF  child  18:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an obituary/memorial consisting of a list of non-notable names. The scope of the deaths is rightly addressed in the parent article. This article seems like an attempt to bypass consensus not to include names in the article about the event. WWGB (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons listed by Rklawton. Dimadick (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep News coverage of the victims confers notability; as does the nature of the event as a deliberately staged massacre of Parisians enjoying secular entertainment. These are not the random victims of a traffic accident. They are deliberately inflicted, highly symbolic killings in an event intended to garner enormous public attention worldwide. Notability on this list of names was conferred by ISIS.  And comfirmed by the response ow western governments and the international press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Moreover, as User:Rklawton correctly points out, when a small number of people are slaughtered in a terror attack, their names, and, often, some brief description of who they were, is given in the article. See for example the Toulouse and Montauban shootings, and the longer list of victims in the  2015 San Bernardino shooting appears on that page.  In this case, the list is so long that this separate page seems appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: WP:NOTPAPER: "Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic... Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but Wikipedia can include more information..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, we have articles that list and individually describe the dead in this 2015 Philadelphia train derailment. I am increasingly puzzled as to why the deaths in Paris are being singled out for exclusion, when we appear to routinely name the individuals killed in other notable incidents.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We have 130 dead here, which is not as easy to hide inside one paragraph that maybe no one (who cares about the policies) will notice for a while as the 8 dead in the accident you mention. We also have precedents, and important ones, where listing all victims was put into question and ruled out. LjL (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I was surprised by the train wreck victim list, and that I categorized such events as articles where such lists are not appropriate; the victims being randomly selected and the event itself, not deliberate murder. Here we are discussing terror campaigns targeting a selected, targeted demographic.  OTHERSTUFF does not apply. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I would like to find a way to preserve some of this content, but as it is so blatantly against the consensus to not list the victims, that seems impossible. Even if Wikipedia is not censored, I find it to be somewhat dishonorable and heartless to spread names or other personal details of victims. A tactic usually supported by hawkish western governments and selfish money-obsessed media. Also: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ceosad (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Several commenters appear not to have read WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which states: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." It us usually applied to the death of a loved one, or a beloved local figure (teacher, pastor, shopkeeper). WP:NOTMEMORIAL would apply if page creator was writing an bio/article about an individual killed in the Paris attacks, otherwise not notable, and supporting such a page with the argument that being mentioned in the newspapers among the dead supports an individual biography.  That is the sort of MEMORIAL that WP is NOT.   It does not apply in this case because here the notability of this list of massacred innocents is established in the routine way as per WP:GNG.  i.e.  What we have here is a list of casualties in certifiably notable incident, and the notability of these deaths is verified by coverage of the deaths that is significant, reliable, independent ans so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, if you read the edit with which the NOTMEMORIAL guideline was introduced, it explicitly mentioned another terrorist attack, that of 9/11, stating that victims of it weren't suitable for Wikipedia inclusion but only for the wiki that had been specifically created as a memorial for them. So, historically, this applies completely to situations such as the current one, and was, in fact, created exactly for them. LjL (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that it was discussed, but not included in the guideline.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Policies, of course, evolve. Lots of WP policies have changed since 2001.  My point is that as the Islamist terror attacks on Western targets have increased, it has become routine on WP to list the victims (probably - at least in part - because news sources do).  Look at Charlie Hebdo shooting, 2015 Copenhagen shootings, 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack, Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack, 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack, Porte de Vincennes siege, 2015 Chattanooga shootings.  Also non-Islamist terrorists, 2015 Colorado Springs shooting.  This AFD is out of line what current WP practice and WP policy as per WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That policy hasn't "evolved". It is what it used to be, without the explicit mention of 9/11 because that problem has become less compelling and it ceased being appropriate for the policy to single out one specific case. One could in fact argue that removing the mention of 9/11 opened the policy even further to applying to every other similar incident. You don't like the policy, I get it, but unilaterally declaring it "evolved" (aka obsoleted, I assume you mean) won't do the trick. LjL (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that while that may have been what was done back in 2001, WP policies change. In practice, long-standing, stable article on terror attacks list victims see:7 July 2005 London bombings. As do articles on more recent events: 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa, 2015 San Bernardino shooting. I do understand that  you don't like the policy now in place on Wikipedia.  But on WP as in all rules-bound legal systems, precedents make law.  The only puzzle here is why casualties in the Paris attack are being treated differently than casualties in other recent, similar attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You must only know about Common law, because in Civil law systems, precedents don't make law, and on Wikipedia itself, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if often cited to indicate a similar attitude. In particular, because of Wipedia's volunteer editing nature, it's not reasonable to argue that just because someone wasn't there to try to have existing policies enforced on previous articles, they are subsequently prevented from doing so on current articles. LjL (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact every Wkipedia article about an Islamist terror attack in the last 2 years in Western Europe, the U.S., Canada (listed above), or Australia (2014 Sydney hostage crisis, 2015 Parramatta shooting) has included a list of victims.  To me, not including them in this article feels like a change in a what has been our normal practice in writing up terrorist attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -  We also have Category:Victims of the September 11 attacks. Stefanomione (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? That's a category of notable people (they must be, since they have an article, and we only have articles about people if they are notable). In fact, categories can never contain entries that are not already articles. Did you miss the part of the nomination where the issue was with an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of non-notable people being made into an article? LjL (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What is being proposed is the opposite of what you imply, to keep a DISCRIMINATE list of human beings whose deaths are notable because they were killed in this specific, extremely NOTABLE attack; names reliably sources, just as they are in other articles about mass shooting, terror bombings, etc.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - show me a page with all 3000 names from 9/11 and I might change my mind... - the WOLF  child  17:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the mention of the name of a single Corporal killed at Ottawa's National War Memorial is not like listing 130 non-notable people. It would be unnatural to not name him for the Corporal was on duty paying tribute to all fallen soldiers and the attack on him was an attack on the whole military and nation. The only other victim was Sam who was shoot in the leg while he tried to wrestle the gun from the terrorist, slowing him down while other police responded, and potentially saving many lives. It is not out of possibilty that the Prime Minister and Cabinet were targets for example as the terrorist got within steps of him. Sam gets mentioned because he took notable heroic action, not because he was shoot. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept the mention of the slain Corporal as a distinction re: condition (line of duty vs. innocent bystander) But why are we making a distinction between the dead in the Paris attack and the dead in the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, listed in the articles, and the dead in the Paris attacks?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL AIR corn (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

December 14

 * Comment - current practice here on Wikipedia is to list all the victims of mass shootings. Check it out for yourself.
 * Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
 * 2015 Colorado Springs shooting
 * 2015 San Bernardino shooting
 * 2015 Chattanooga shootings
 * Charleston church shooting
 * 2015 Lafayette shooting
 * 2015 Tyrone shooting
 * 2015 Harris County, Texas shooting
 * 2015 Waco shootout
 * I could extend the list, but I figured I could safely stop here since I didn't find a single mass shooting at this point that didn't include a victims' list. Clearly, VERY clearly, WP:Memorial does not apply to victims' lists. Let's be honest, folks. No valid reason has yet been put forward to treat this list any differently from Wikipedia's current standard practice of including a victims' list in our articles on mass shootings. Rklawton (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Are any of the pages you listed here a separate article, just for the list? No? Then your point is dismissed. - the WOLF  child  08:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Why should the Paris Terror Attacks Wikipedia entry be discriminated against by highly selectively making this the only recent shooting without a listing of victims? XavierItzm (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not "discrimination". Stop calling it that. That's just a needless, baseless and inflammatory accusation. - the WOLF  child  22:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And why are other terrorist attacks like 9/11 and Metrojet Flight 9268‎ being "discriminated" by having no victims lists either? The answer is, they aren't, they simply follow policy. The other shootings you mention should be addressed in due time as failing to meet policy. LjL (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Terrorist attacks that take place in countries lacking a lively, free press: Russia, Egypt (re:Jet shot down over Sinai,) and, sadly, most of the world fall into this category. I suspect that it is lack of  reliable sources, of freedom to edit online, and of English-speaking WP editors that leads to the paltry coverage of attacks in much of the world on Anglophone Wikipedia.  The 9/11 article was written a long time ago.  A well-sourced article on the casualties would fare very differently today, since WP practice has apparently changed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per . -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - If an article on the victims of the 2008 Mumbai attacks exists, then I don't see a reason why there shouldn't be an article on the victims of these attacks. Parsley Man (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per . Parsley Man (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * do you see a list of the names of the victims on that article? Because that's what this is about. I don't see one. LjL (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * you should rerethink your position because your original reasoning was valid. Just because there is more information available here... the intent of the articles is the same and both are encyclopedic. Bod (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , nah, I'd rather not. Parsley Man (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge content to November 2015 Paris attacks; the main article is not large enough to justify a split per WP:PAGESIZE. ansh 666 04:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if consensus on the main article is that any of the content of this page should not be there, then having that content here is just an attempt to override consensus through forking, and should not be merged back. ansh 666 06:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will additionally note that the presence of lists of victims on other articles of a similar nature is inconsistent (unlike what some say above), and that it shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion in any case, since this is about a standalone list of victims. ansh 666 06:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - ...and Pearl Harbor too. Until we list all 2500 people killed at Pearl Harbor, (and all 3000 people killed on 9/11), then we shouldn't be listing anyone. (unless they were already notable, or did something notable during the incident.) It's both sad and unfortunate that people are killed during mass attacks, but an encyclopaedia is not the place to memorialize random lists of victims. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  08:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and the 168 killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. WHY aren't they listed? Why are we "discriminating" against them? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  09:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and the 2011 Norway attacks. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  09:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Or indeed most wars, for which most countries have official lists of dead. Why no article on List of American military casualties of the Vietnam war as an addendum to Vietnam War? Because it would be wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia, that's why. : if you feel that would be justified, then how about List of victims of World War II? There are, after all, many authoritative sources available to start compiling such a list. All those people died in tragic circumstances, and surely World War II is notable, therefore, by your reasoning, we should have such a list. Can you see why this is a bad idea? -- The Anome (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – If these people were written about in reliable sources, then this group, collectively, deserves to be written about. There is a difference between these people dying and people in warzones and we have better information now than for past articles, so there isn't the impetus to go back and list victims for the Oklahoma City bombing, but if someone wanted to go back and do that, it would be fine. Bod (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With the intent to rework the list – To be in line with Casualties_of_the_2008_Mumbai_attacks and Casualties_of_the_2004_Madrid_bombings, but not to be removed wholesale without reorganized summary. Bod (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Those articles you mentioned do not list the victims individually, which is the crux of the matter. If we removed the list of the victims from this article, we'd basically be left with a section and table we already have at the main article, which if anything, could be expanded a little, with no need for a WP:SPINOUT. LjL (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Casualties of..." –—- Support Merge if new article is small enough. Bod (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As a bit of Realpolitik, though... if this AFD passes as a "keep", people are bound to collectively see it as a license to keep the individual victims, not just to make it similar to those "Casualties" articles that simply mention numbers. Just read the (long list of) opinions here and you'll see that. LjL (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed they do deserve to be written about, and are, collectively, in November 2015 Paris attacks. Would you support the creation of an individual article on every one of these people? If so, why? If not, why not?User:The Anome
 * User:The Anome Please don't drag in that Straw man. No one has proposed "the creation of an individual article on every one of these people".E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the logical consequence of your argument, if you believe that these people are individually notable. If they are not, then the only issue is editorial: do we list their names individually, or do we summarize the details of the dead, as is the general practice, which also has the advantage of being concise and in accordance with WP:NOTMEMORIAL? -- The Anome (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm also fascinated by your drawing a distinction between "these people dying and people in warzones" -- can you tell what that distinction is, please? Are their deaths any less tragic, or are they any less human or worthy of our pity? Or is it simply because there are a lot of them, and it would be silly to list them all? If the last, then we would be in agreement: then it's just a matter of discussing the cutoff point for there being too many to list individually. I would suggest that that cutoff point is the point at which you have to create a separate list article like the one we are discussing just to fit them in. -- The Anome (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a special case that sets it apart from many other incidents. I was not 100% on my decision coming to this page, but the arguments for were strong. Don't be silly, these people are not notable individually. Yes, the deaths are more tragic because it is unexpected and out of the typical world order. The other shootings have had the victims listed. The 9/11 attack had a number killed bordering on 3,000 and it was not a one-by-one killing like a shooting. The other question is: What is the quality of information within this list? The answer: as much as I can tell from a name and age. I think it would be better as a placeofbirth-sex-age. Listing their names borders on Memorial. Bod (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Every killing is a one-to-one killing. To think otherwise is to dehumanize the victim, and exonerate the killer. The killings of the victims of the Paris atrocity were indiscriminate, and it makes no difference if they were shot one-by-one or killed all at the same time by a bomb. The only common attribute of the victims was that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. -- The Anome (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Slightly different in this scenario. The killer knew these people, worked with them. Bod (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? That's news to me. If they knew them personally, or had worked with them personally, that would indeed be significant. Do you have any evidence for that? -- The Anome (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You got me. I got roped into back-n-forth. Its late. Been working on "San Bernadino" where I also fought for a list. Totally wrong there. Bod (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - You want more recent, non-warzone incidents? OK, how about listing every victim from: List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2015, or List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2015, or List of terrorist incidents, 2014, or List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2013, or List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2013, or List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2012, or List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2012, or List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2011, or List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2011, or List of terrorist incidents, 2010. I can keep going, there are plenty more at List of (non-state) terrorist incidents, List of events named massacres and List of mass car bombings. There is also Domestic_terrorism, but hopefully you get the point. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  12:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you want a formula. OK. (A) A shooting. (B) Small enough list of people. (C) Part of the "western" world. (D) The incident notable enough to have an article of its own. Now find me that list. Bod (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All the arguments for keeping this list are emotive, so let me follow on in kind. I could ask you: Why do you seem to think the deaths of people killed by bombing somehow less worthy? Why should the list be "small enough"? Why are the deaths of people not in the Western world somehow less significant? Or are your objections to this list that following this line of thinking all the way to its logical consequences would have deeply silly results?-- The Anome (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - we already have one, it's called WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and we should be following it. Just because a few people ignored it recently with some other mass-killing articles, doesn't we should continue ignoring it. It was already decided that Wikipedia is not the place to maintain lists of non-notable people, just because they died in a mass-death incident.- the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  13:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. No need for a list of the victims. Not a memorial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge or Keep There is no reason to eradicate these victims and reduce them to a statistic. Stalin famously talked about the difference between a 'tragedy' and a 'statistic.'  By deleting we will reduce this down to a bare number.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Um... what? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  13:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Really, 7&amp;6=thirteen? Do you think this is the attitude of people who want to delete this list? This is not a matter of respect for the victims: these people certainly deserve to be memorialized, just not here, as spelled out in WP:MEMORIAL. If you are consistent in your beliefs in this, you should now immediately create List of victims of World War II. After all, if you're so concerned about the memorialization of the deaths of 130 people, the deaths of of the order of 60 million people should concern you roughly 500,000 times more. -- The Anome (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not impugning the motives of the other editors. You have erected a straw man fallacy. I was merely pointing out the effects.  I have neither the time nor the inclination to take you up on your excellent suggestion.  I also understand and appreciate your argument.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd like think its more of a logically valid reductio ad absurdam than a straw man. I fully sympathize with those who want to memorialize the dead, and I can see their intentions are good. But my concern is not with the intentions, but with the results -- doing so would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. -- The Anome (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This list is already done. Now you want to delete it.  The argument about hypothetical lists is moot. Wikipedia is not paper, and having a link to this article costs nothing. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 13:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. The argument for keeping this list is exactly the same as keeping List of victims of World War II once created. As you say, Wikipedia is not paper, and it's only a matter of scale. Really, it wouldn't take long to create a start on that from publically available sources, such as for example this. It would only be matter of a few minutes to do the appropriate scripting: it's only about 400,000 names. Would you like someone to do that for you? If not, why not? -- The Anome (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For that matter, why not earthquakes, eruptions, tsunamis...? Since "respect" has been mentioned (which shouldn't play a role on an encyclopedia, but whatever), are victims of those things less tragically dead than others? LjL (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about deleting, keeping or merging this article. Differentials based upon different sets of facts have nothing to do with "respect." This article exists, and you want to delete it. Call it like it is. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted, as said many times before, because we have a policy on this matter: WP:MEMORIAL, and also against making indiscriminate lists. I'm merely pointing out the irrationality of making emotive arguments for keeping it, no matter how worthy their intentions. -- The Anome (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Breaking: it is only possible to delete articles that exist (sometimes while comparing them to ones that don't exist and shouldn't). LjL (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:LjL, If that is your argument (I and others argue that WP:MEMORIAL does not apply and that the notability of deaths in terrorist attacks are well-documented by coverage in reliable media, passing WP:GNG I think that you need to alert the editors of the terrorist attacks in Western countries with a free press that have taken place in 2014 and 2015 - all of them have victim lists. Since you argue that this deletion - should it go through - will set a precedent - it is only fair to notify the editors who improved of including victims names in all of the similar, recent attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are confusing "fair" with "WP:CANVASSING". I'm not going to do the latter on your behalf. Anyway it's very funny that you limit the scope of articles with victims lists to one "in Western countries with a free press". Not WP:Systemic bias at all, eh? LjL (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did nothing of the sort, as you would know if you had actually read my arguments (above). I often create and build articles on terrorist attack in Africa and the near east.  That is why I know that there are problems with the editing and sourcing of those articles.  I am comparing this article with articles on terror attacks in parts of the world areas that, like France, have a free press and a substantial number of English-speaking Wikipedia editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I fail to see how you can refuse to notify editors working on similar articles, assert that once this article is done it will permit the deletion of the names of victims on all other articles, and fail to understand that this is closer to Gaming the system than it is to CANVASSING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to stop engaging with you. I am of course allowed to nominate an article to meet policy (as many have agreed) for deletion, and to suggest that the same should apply to similar articles - which, by the way, were brought up by you and others in an WP:Other stuff exists attempt to justify keeping this one. Ever heard of WP:Boomerang? Anyway, enough bickering. I have more than enough support on this to easily dismiss your accusations of "gaming". LjL (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, neither you or anyone else has brought a link the black letter policy you assert. I can't find it.  Does a "policy" forbidding inclusion of names of victims sourced to multiple reliable sources exist?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither have you engaged the argument that an apparent consensus has developed to list victims, an consensus implemented in all articles on terrorist attacks in Europe and the Anglosphere in 2014 and 2015 (haven't check further back).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your snarky, arrogant tone in pretending that you have engaged with arguments that you have ignored, and asserting the authority of a "policy" you have not been able to cite is not collegial. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

you mentioned WP:GNG to support your position, but you do realize that when talking about people, WP:BLP applies and it is stricter. That said, people who are otherwise non-notable, don't suddenly become notable simply because they had the misfortune of being killed in a mass-shooting or other mass-attack. Of course the media mentions their names, but only as part of the larger story, which is the attack itself. It's the event that is notable, not the victims. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – Wikipedia is not a memorial or a list of indiscriminate information. The "victims" certainly do not pass WP:GNG, as is claimed. People notable for WP:ONEVENT, i.e. their deaths, are not notable at all, nor is a list of them. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:RGloucester, I think you meant their individual notability is not effected by the event when you said "their deaths, are not notable at all, nor is a list of them." Certainly the event is notable. But perhaps that is not your intent.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User: Thewolfchild, User:RGloucester, WP:BLP  applies to notability of biographical articles, to apply it here is to mix aples with oranges.  My argument, and that of others, is that sources support notability of the names for inclusion in a list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE Parallel conversation now underway at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This information is not encyclopedic. The policy What Wikipedia is not says Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site and Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.. These people are just not encyclopedic. This belongs on a plaque somewhere not an encyclopedia. <b style="color:DarkSlateBlue">HighInBC</b> 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: that the names and, often, life stories of the victims have appeared in multiple, reliable news media.  WP:MEMORIAL does not address this situation.    This debate  is not a matter of policy. There is no policy re: including names of victims of terrorism whose names and life stories have been  widely published in significant, reliable media.  What we have here is a difference of opinion.   And the citation of different precedents:   Names of the 9/11 dead were not listed on WP.  Those of the dead in more recent terrorist attacks have routinely been listed on WP.  Since we have no applicable policy or rule, let's all stop citing policies that do not apply.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What you do not understand is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, or any sort of new media. It is an encylopaedia, and does not print everything that is written in every newspaper, only what is encyclopaedic, and has long term significance. This list of "victims" has neither long term significance nor encyclopaedic importance. The impact of this event from an encyclopaedic perspective has nothing to do with the people who were killed, and everything to do with the political ramifications of it. The encylopaedia will not indiscriminately contain a list of "victims" merely because said list was published in the news media, as that would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to the part of this event that matters the least. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How do we proceed?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposal treat this like any other aspect of the San Barnardino massacre story, simply treat this like all other information (type of weapons, reaction or heads of state) and include well-sourced information naming the victims in the article simply because it is verifiable, and has had widespread and significant coverage in multiple reliable forms of media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not encyclopedic material. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally, a rational argument. Thank you, Cwobeel. Our quesiton becomes: what is encyclopedic in WP:NOTPAPER world.  We certainly  care in an ongoing way to know the fact that the parents or spouses of a person died in a a notable mas death event, like 9/11, or this google search on 9/11 widow , or this one on parents died Auschwitz  - note how many Wikipedia article include that and similar Holocaust-related deaths of parents and grandparents.  We don't read obituaries stating that someone's grandmother died in boating accident.  We do if she died on the Titanic.  Deaths in certain notorious incidents do acquire encyclopedic significance.  I think we should keep this list because of that notability, because I suspect that Wikipedia articles written in 2045 will link back to this page and mention that the parents of thus-and-such a opera singer or organic chemist lost a parent to this attack.  Just as they newspaper obituaries long mentioned that an individual's parent died on the Titanic, or in the Johnstown Flood.  I see this incident as having that kind of notability.  I could be wrong, but I do appreciate  Cwobeel's rational approach to this question.  Is the inclusion of a list of names of the dead encyclopedic in a WP:NOTPAPER world? E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think the list of victims must be made available to a reader, but this could be done by providing appropriate links (such as that one) from the main page about these attacks. This is unless the list is something controversial and must be compiled from multiple sources and based on multiple publications, so that an WP article would be required to create such list as a separate and notable subject. If that had happened, I would vote "keep", but not sure if this is really the case here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I absolutely agree, and I think that this is an ideal solution to the problem. While there's a good rationale for not having it here based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the list of victims is still an important piece of primary source information, and we should by all means link to reliable sources which have such lists, of which there are many. -- The Anome (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment So now there is this, Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks (2nd nomination). the 3rd AFD for that particular article, and a possible violation of WP:POINT.  I looked at the article and old version of it, a list version deleted somewhat arbitrarily, made me rethink this discussion. Scroll down: .  Seeing the names of individuals creates a very different understanding of an event than a statistical summary.  After seeing that list, I want to redouble my argument on behalf of creating and keeping such lists of slaughtered human beings.  Lists of individual people  Failing to list them as individuals, while describing the lives, motives, and circumstances of the killers at length - sometimes with empathy, but always as individual people with names, now seems to me to actively discount the loss produced by these attacks, to give WP:UNDUE weight to the perspective of killers and actually if inadvertently to tend towards producing the biased articles that we all strive to avoid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

December 15

 * Note that the RFC on whether to keep or delete the list of victims at the 2015 San Bernardino shooting has concluded with a tally of 15 for keeping 5 for deleting and 2 more complex opinions (one for keeping one for deleting). Just a point of information on a near-parallel case being discussed simultaneously with this AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it has not. The RfC has barely been open for a week (default is 30 days), the tally was made by an involved editor, and is just that - a tally, which doesn't reflect policy arguments or the consensus-based decision making that is the process on Wikipedia. ansh 666 00:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC) (by the way, direct link to the RfC)
 * And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't add random "tallies" to surveys (which are WP:NOTVOTEs). LjL (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to echo several of the earlier semtiments, one of the most effective and telling events in the Vietnam War for the United States was the running of Life Magazine's story with names and faces of one week's worth of casualties. See Faces of the American Dead in Vietname OIne Weeks Toll, June 1969 Time Magazine which has a link to the Life article.  Putting names and faces on it gives it a whole different dimension and impact.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 01:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you've forgotten that you're contributing to AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a news magazine? ansh 666 01:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No. These are facts that are involved in making editorial judgments.  There are many ways to do our job.  And content, judgment and consequences are part of the mix.  It is a relevant example of the possible choices we are making here. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 01:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you make this sound like a newspaper. It's not... it's AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA. And this isn't your "job"... we are all volunteers here. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  19:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

December 16

 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. If other victim lists exist contrary to these policies, then they deserve their own deletion discussions, but are not policies or guidelines.  Newspapers have different inclusion criteria than encyclopedias., Edison (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, there is no clear wiki-policy on whether to include casualty lists. Merely custom (we did not used to), current practice (in recent years, articles on terror attacks consistently list casualties by name), and the question of how we choose to interpret policies such as the ones you cite with regard to this and future cases.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact there is, it's called WP:NOTMEMORIAL. What you don't seem to get is that when that policy was established, that was the community speaking loud and clear that an encyclopaedia is not the appropriate venue to list victims of mass-casualty events, unless they were already notable, or did something notable during the event. Simply having the misfortune of being injured or even killed in such an event does not, on it's own, make someone notable. Of course the media mentions their names... that's what they do. Not us. It is the event that is notable, not the person. Just because some people have either unknowingly violated the policy, or flat out ignored it, by creating lists of victims, does not make it "ok". - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  13:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:MEMORIAL says not to write memorials for non-notable people, and WP:BIO1E says that people tangentially involved in an event are not notable.  Lists of victims are inherently memorials.  There are more appropriate places than Wikipedia to create these memorials. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

December 17

 * Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As the article stands, it's a summary of the main Paris attack article, and then a list of names. This isn't at all notable or add any information to the main article besides the names. If this included more reliable sources that talked at length about the victims as a group it could possibly work, but this article is not that. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep (for the moment). WP:NOTMEMORIAL (which is just a short paragraph) appears intended to prevent articles along the lines of "<Person> was a victim of . He <led an entirely non-notable life> before the attack." - the guideline says nothing specifically about lists. If lists of victims are not allowed than that should be clearly stated in NOTMEMORIAL (and then this page deleted). Pragmatically, having a list like this does little harm and may avoid people trying to shoehorn names of victims into the main article (or into Wikipedia in other ways). Perhaps, NOTMEMORIAL should be changed to say that a list article is only appropriate if a complete list of victims has been published in one RS - that would prevent "List of victims of WWII" etc. DexDor(talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTMEORIAL was created largely due to 9/11. An encyclopaedia is not the place to list the names of victims of mass-casualty incidents. People who are otherwise non-notable. Sure, they are mentioned in the media, but only because they had the misfortune of being injured or killed in a notable incident. This is literally a "slippery slope". We start with a half-dozen names from a shooting, then several dozen names from a bombing, next thing you know, people want a list of all 3000 victims of 9/11, and on it goes, until people start looking to list all the 100 million+ killed, injured and/or missing from WWII. Then people will want to extend it to every type of event where people are killed; plane crashes, earth quakes, floods, various weather phenomena, epidemics of disease, etc., etc. There are multiple policies that address notability, beyond wp:notmemorial, and they all clearly establish that Wikipedia is not the place to list all these unfortunate people. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  21:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTMEMORIAL was (iirc) written after people had been creating bio articles about individual victims. Re WWII etc - please read the last sentence of my comment. Re "multiple policies" - please link one that's relevant here. DexDor(talk) 22:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Take your pick: WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E, WP:BLP, WP:NLIST, WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop quoting policies that don't apply here. I've already mentioned NOTMEMORIAL. I picked one of your long list - WP:VICTIM says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article ..." (my emphasis). DexDor(talk) 23:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop quoting policies that don't apply here - You can tell that to all the editors that quoted these policies are part of their arguments to delete. If you had read through all the comments, you'd see that for yourself. (it's not as if I just pulled these out of my ass) A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article - Good! Thanks for pointing that out. I take it you'll switch your vote to 'delete' this separate article, as per policy, then? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  02:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You may think you have an obligation to reply to every keep !vote, but I'm under no obligation to reply to every delete !vote. WP:VICTIM tells us not to create an article on the subject of (for example) Anne Guyomard (unless, of course, she's notable for something); this isn't such an article. You've also referred to WP:UNDUE, but that's about not giving undue weight to minority viewpoints (e.g. Flat Earth) and has no relevance here. DexDor(talk) 08:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is under any "obligation" to do anything here. This is just a discussion, there is no need to get upset. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We also have WP:NLIST (where it says that inclusion in stand-alone lists must happen only if a person is notable), if WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not enough, but yeah, it was created pretty much for this: if you see above, you will find that it originally explicitly had 9/11 as an example. LjL (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Afaics, WP:NLIST is about "normal" lists (List of Foobar School alumni, List of Norwegian musicians etc) - such lists are intended for notable people, but could easily be swamped by names of non-notable people which would make the list less useful to readers (and less encyclopedic). Lists like this one (and another example about victims of a specific event) don't have that problem. I'm not sure that NLIST is intended to prohibit lists like this - more likely that this sort of list wasn't considered when NLIST was written. DexDor(talk) 22:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * True that NLIST applies to "normal lists" and not to such abnormal lists because abnormal lists shouldn't exist maybe. Also, NLIST at last states that it applies to lists in general, so Lists of people dead in ABC tragedy, Lists of restaurants in PQR country which use unpeeled potatoes, Lists of books having less than 50 pages published by XYZ press are all covered in it. Also, lets assume that such an article exists, per WP:LSC, none of the names should be included in this article having failed those 3 bullet points at LSC. So why keep a blank list? §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

December 18

 * Merge, It does have some informative information. Kiwifist (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * are you quite sure it's not information that was taken from (or at least duplicates) information already found at November 2015 Paris attacks? The only thing I can possibly spot that is unique to this article is the mention that a list of the names was projected at a ceremony... LjL (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "informative information" - Misc-tpvgames.gif - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTMEMORIAL. Merge any useful information. Carrite (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2015 (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.