Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/List of General Slocum victims

List of General Slocum victims
This list was originally deleted per vote at Votes for deletion/List of General Slocum victims, and moved to List of General Slocum victims. Now, a similar list which was also moved to Wikisource (per requests here) was VFD'd on wikisource, with people saying that it belongs here. (Wikisource:Wikisource:Proposed deletions). -- brian0918 &#153;  17:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 *  Reasons this list belongs on Wikipedia :
 * Columbine High School massacre exists on Wikipedia
 * Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks exists on Wikipedia
 * Survivors of the September 11, 2001 attacks exists on Wikipedia
 * Persons missing after the September 11, 2001 attacks exists on Wikipedia
 * http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDNY exists in the Wikipedia space
 * http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributes_to_companies exists in the Wikipedia space
 * Canal Hotel Bombing exists on Wikipedia
 * Maxim restaurant suicide bombing exists on Wikipedia

Either all of these should be kept, and this list should be undeleted, or all of these should be deleted. If these are all kept, then so should any future lists of disaster victims. -- brian0918 &#153;  18:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. Sorry Wikisource didn't want it either, but that doesn't give Wikipedia any obligation to take it. Citation of other articles is irrelevant, because VfU is for correction of improperly deleted articles, not for reconsideration of articles voted for deletion. Since Wikipedia does not have any review procedure for accepting articles, the fact that an article is in Wikipedia and has not been deleted does not imply that there's been any consensus judgement that the article is encyclopedic. Had I been voting in the VfD, I would have noted established policy excludes memorials. I would have judged that the lists Canal Hotel Bombing and Maxim restaurant suicide bombing were acceptable because they were short lists in the context of an article, which the General Slocum list is not. And I would have judged that the 9/11 and Columbine victims list warranted an exception because they are associated with extremely notable events that are thought to have an especially tragic character. The General Slocum disaster did not occur within living memory and there are probably no living relatives of the victims. But in any case all this was a topic for VfD, not VfU. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So, you'll keep a list if it's short (and by the fact that it's short, did not affect as many people), and you'll keep a list if it's about something you remember seeing on TV in your lifetime. Not very neutral.  Screw the past because it doesn't affect us? -- brian0918  &#153;  18:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I won't fuss about an inappropriate list if it's a relatively short part of a long article and if other editors want it there. And I won't be the one to nominate a list of 9/11 victims for deletion, but not because "I saw it on television in my lifetime." And I don't think we should list the 50,000 people who died in the Lisbon earthquake of 1755. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, you claim that a short list is alright if it's in the appropriate article. Well, where's the cutoff?  It's alright to keep a list of 10 people who died in a bombing because the 10 can be listed in the article, but when a disaster which is ORDERS larger occurs, its list will obviously be much longer (and the disaster will obviously impact the world more greatly, thus being more noteworthy).  This list, however, would need its own article because it is too long to include in the original article on the disaster.  But, according to your argument, a list such as this shouldn't have its own article, even if it's linked in the original article and is in context.   So, where's the cutoff?  Is it alright for 15 people to be listed, in that article, but not for 150, which would need its own article, and so should not exist?  Is 40 alright, but not 50?  -- brian0918  &#153;  18:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's why we decide these things case by case. If we could do it with an algorithm, we wouldn't need VfD. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. This is all arbitrary.  Are we really supposed to decide such similar articles case by case based on random whims?  -- brian0918  &#153;  21:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, we are supposed to decide such similar articles case by case based on good judgement and community consensus. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Community consensus" is just the random whim of whatever users are currently active and happen to visit the VFD/VFU pages. This is why we need precedent. -- brian0918  &#153;  01:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Precedent is often mentioned in VfD discussions. That was the appropriate place to make your points. If you had strong feelings about the article, why didn't you have it on your watchlist? Then you would have seen the change when it was placed on VfD and would have had ample opportunity to discuss it in VfD. This is VfU. This is not a VfD reconsideration, it is a forum for discussing whether there was anything wrong with the VfD process; for example, was the sysop correct in judging that the debate indicated rough consensus to delete? Was there evidence of sockpuppet votes that should have been ignored? etc. etc. I'm sorry you don't like my side remarks about how I would have voted in VfD, but since I didn't vote in that VfD it doesn't matter. I shouldn't have said anything about it. My vote of "keep deleted" here not based on my opinion that the article should be deleted, it is based on my judgement that the VfD was proper. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So, a summary of your logic:  a disaster which impacts less will have less victims and so the victims can be in that article, but a disaster which impacts more will have more victims, but that list will be so long as to warrant its own article, but that article shouldnt exist because lists should be in the article on the disaster.  -- brian0918  &#153;  18:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was logical. I was saying that's how I would have voted on this particular article had it come up for VfD. And explaining why I don't personally plan to nominate the others for VfD or personally delete the lists in the articles you mention that contain them. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As for context, here was the intro to the article: "The General Slocum was a steamship that burned in the East River in New York City on June 15, 1904. Over 1,000 people died in the tragedy, making it New York City's worst loss-of-life disaster until the September 11, 2001 attacks."
 * A full article on the General Slocum disaster would be fine. And a good stub on it would be fine, too. It would be highly appropriate for such an article to contain short capsule descriptions of any victims who perished who were notable enough to warrant such mention, but not so notable as to merit articles of their own. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not just that Wikisource didn't want it, they said it belonged here. -- brian0918  &#153;  19:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The Wikisource project doesn't speak for Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep deleted, valid VfD vote. Just because WIkisource doesn't want it means we have to take it. RickK 19:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * So you're not going to bother to respond to any of my other comments? As for your "reason": it's not just that Wikisource didn't want it, they said it belonged here.  -- brian0918  &#153;  19:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As dbpsmith said, Wikisource doesn't speak for Wikipedia. RickK 00:40, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Undelete. I take Dpbsmith's point about what VfU is for: correction of improper deletions, not reconsideration of articles. I do think this was improperly deleted. Please take a look at how the wipedia vfd went: people did vote to delete, but they mostly did so with the stipulation that the list wouldn't disappear, it would be kept at wikisource. These stipulations are of different kinds, some clear and some fuzzy, but it honestly looks to me as if only two people are voting to delete outright, the rest ask for it to be deleted on condition of being kept at wikisource. They couldn't know wikisource wouldn't want it either, so they were voting for an alternative that turned out not to exist. Please take a look for yourself, see if you agree. If the deletion represents an outcome that the vfd voters actually didn't want, and would not have voted for, then surely the deletion should be reversed? The deletion was "proper" only in the most formalistic sense. --Bishonen|Talk 21:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, point us to Wikisource vote. Clearly belongs on Wikisource; there is no detailed listing of the victims of the September 11 attacks on the main Wikipedia space.  If they still won't take it, please point me and anyone else to any new vote at Wikisource.--Pharos 22:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What about this list? -- brian0918 &#153;  22:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait... you just put that on VfD. Why do you prefer the General Slocum list?  Anyway, I put a message on the Wikisource page about the 'similar list' and I suggest that others do too.  There's been virtually no debate on this there at all.--Pharos 22:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't prefer one over the other. I want both of them to exist.  But, it currently appears that the 9/11 list is favored over the General Slocum list, which is definitely not a neutral stance.  -- brian0918  &#153;  22:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I suggest that the policy be this: "1. If the entire list of victims (non-notables included) CAN fit within the article, allow it. 2. If the list of all victims (non-notables included) CANNOT fit in the article within reason (adhearing to file size guidelines, general appearance of page, etc.), only notables may be included, but a link to the full list (on external source) can be provided." Anyone in agreement? I think those would be sensible rules. That would allow the Septemper 11th lists to remain intact (transwikied), and if an article is significant enough for inclusion on the Wikipedia, a casualty list from an external source should be found without significant effort. -Phobophile 23:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree: This gives an advantage to smaller incidents which, by their very nature, are less noteworthy, so the people in those incidents are less noteworthy, so you're saying that people who are less noteworthy are more important.
 * Also, there are other sources in the world besides the internet. So finding an external link is not always an option (true for this case and most others).  -- brian0918  &#153;  23:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with Phobophile's reasoning. I don't think this is (or should be) an issue of "advantage" or "disadvantage" to victims of different disasters or tragedies.  Actually, the list of those who died in the World Trade Center (the vast majority) is on the memorial wiki, and other lists of otherwise non-notable victims from other events should be on Wikisource.--Pharos 00:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Wikisource VFD'd one with the claim that it should be here. -- brian0918  &#153;  00:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The 'List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm' has not been deleted; it has been proposed for deletion at this page (for info to others) by one user, after which you expressed some (somewhat justifiable) exasperation, but did not actually oppose it. I have voted to oppose it myself, and suggest that other Wikipedians following this page do so as well.--Pharos 00:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: most likely listed here to make a point following the VfD of Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks: Pentagon. --InShaneee 00:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, this is not to make a point. I want this article to exist somewhere.  The 9/11 vfd was simply to remain neutral.  If one can't exist, neither can the others.  -- brian0918  &#153;  00:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want it to exist somewhere, put it in your User space. RickK 00:40, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Again avoiding the issue. Can you contribute anything substantial? -- brian0918  &#153;  00:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * brian was wrong to "make a point" on the pentagon list, but we cannot have Wikisource delete all of their lists that are linked to from here. Have your voice heard there, where it counts for this.--Pharos 00:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You know what? I've said all I have to say to you.  You have a history of making vicious attacks on people who disagree with you, and I refuse to play the game.  RickK 19:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikimedia Commons. Before we get ahead of ourselves, I think the victim list would be suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Any thoguhts? -Phobophile 02:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) Radiant_* 09:03, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Currently at least, the Commons does not host text. The place for this is Wikisource.--Pharos 03:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * According to their site they do: The Wikimedia Commons is a project that provides a central repository for free images, music, sound & video clips and, possibly, texts and spoken texts, used in pages of any Wikimedia project. -- brian0918  &#153;  17:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But this text is not "used in pages of any Wikimedia project." RickK 19:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be linked to in General Slocum in the same way that audio files are linked to. -- brian0918 &#153;  19:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete. Agree with Bishonen that this was improperly deleted and that there is good reason to host it at Wikipedia proper.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 00:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete, compared to these other lists it fits right in. No reason this should have been deleted IMO.  ALKIVAR &trade; 00:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted, the VfD process was valid. WikiMemorial may want it, but that's their business. Radiant_* 11:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Valid VfD. Jayjg (talk) 22:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure the VFD was valid, but it can be undeleted if new information comes up, such as Wikisource not wanting the image either, when everyone originally voted to move it to Wikisource. -- brian0918 &#153;  22:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No. The VfD vote was that Wikipedia doesn't want it.  If Wikisource doesn't want it, then why should we be forced to take it?  RickK 23:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Valid VfD.  When we suggest an alternative site which might want the material, all we are really saying is "submit to..." because we cannot guarantee the other project will want it.  If we VfD a dicdef and the consensus is "transwiki to Wiktionary" that means we submit it to Wiktionary.  If they don't keep it, that doesn't mean we have to, or that the VfD consensus should be reversed.  It is the same with Wikisource or any other sister project.  Valid VfD, keep deleted.  SWAdair | Talk  05:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete. If originally deleted with "no" votes that hinged on a stipulation that proved unworkable, then there should be a new vote - after we determine if Radiant's suggestion of WikiMemeorial is valid or not.  We should let the editors know if the article will be deleted and not listed in any Wiki.  If they still vote to delete then that will be a strong consensus.  I think that lists of victims is something that should be debated until a consensus is reached.  I suspect that they don't really belong on Wikipedia at all, neither small lists in articles nor large lists as articles, even historically significant.  What about WikiLists? AboutWestTulsa 20:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the consensus is that it doesn't belong here. That does not mean we keep it until we find some place else to put it. And it has already been established that Wikipedia is not a memorial. By all means go and ask on WikiLists if they want it.
 * There is no such thing as "WikiLists"; AboutWestTulsa was proposing an idea for an alternative list-o-centric Wiki, which does not exist. As of now, let's just make sure it does not become Wikisource policy to delete their lists, which don't belong here as encyclopedia articles but are certainly important sources of information.--Pharos 09:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The article was invalidly recreated. I have redeleted it.  RickK 22:31, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted - the article on the event already has an external link to wikisource for the complete list. It's in-house so keep this duplicate deleted. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete - this article does not belong on Wikisource since it is not an original source. It should either be moved to Wikicommons (according to the arguments listed above), Wikibooks (as a community created list) or Wikipedia (until a more appropriate place is found for it).  I agree with Brian0918 that it is valuable, but Wikisource is not the place for it.  CSN 01:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that every project is deleting it, saying that it doesn't belong on their project. I personally have no problem if the information were lost for good or if it had to be published on just a web page, but would lists like General Slocum and the Great Lakes storm be important enough for their own project?  —  Zhaladshar  (Talk) 21:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleted from WikiCommons following a request at Commons:Deletion requests. Thuresson 13:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Invalid deletion as it was based on the list's existence at Wikisource, even though it's up for deletion at Wikisource as well. -- BRIAN 0918  15:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)