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. slakr^\ talk / 02:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed during Euromaidan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This was discussed and kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of killed Euromaidan members, when there were 6 people on the list[1]. Now, there are sadly more than 100 deaths, and the list is one giant memorial for them. Understandable, but not the purpose of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTMEMORIAL is meant to avoid the proliferation of pseudo-articles on some beloved dead but unnotable relative and stuff like that. Here we are instead dealing with a thoroughly sourced list on a notable subject (while perhaps none of the dead is notable in their own right, the whole topic is). --cyclopia^speak! 13:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we have (and want) list of people dead during battle X, aircrash Y, terrorist attack Z? For many of these, the list of victims can easily be sourced, but still the consensus seems to have been not to have such separate lists, e.g.
- Other articles, like List of victims of the Our Lady of the Angels school fire, have not been challenged so far, but should be treated the same IMO. (Let's not get started on utterly useless and unsourced lists like List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2013).
- And of course, we don't even list the individual Casualties of the September 11 attacks, which are also easily sourceable. The topic of who exactly was killed is not a notable subject, the protests and the fact of the killings are of course very notable subjects but the list does nothing to increase our understanding of the events. Fram (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Uh, I see what you are trying to claim as evidence of previous consensus, but still I am not really convinced. Looks more like a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but actually you yourself show that such stuff does exist, even if you feel it should be challenged. The AfD linked also weren't exactly much participated and/or unanimously commented on the delete/merge side. So there is hardly evidence of binding consensus either way. Most of these discussions also ended up in a merge, at least in theory, which would require to preserve the information; given the size and detail of this list a merge would not be a reasonable option, so to WP:PRESERVE the information, we should keep it separate. That said, I disagree with assessments as "the list does nothing to increase our understanding". First of all, we should not delete articles on the basis that we find them WP:USELESS; information which does not increase my understanding can increase someone else's. For example the list reports the dates, nationalities and causes of death, which can be useful instead to dissect what was going on and/or to compare with similar events. Second, even if we don't feel it is useful, it is still notable and well sourced information, and as such there is no real reason to delete it -the NOTMEMORIAL argument in this case looks more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, since this is not a mere memorial bio of a loved one.--cyclopia^speak! 17:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - (Also, you noticed yourself that this article has been previously kept, so in this specific case it seems consensus is going against deletion). --cyclopia ^speak! 17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I think that this is a great example of WP:Notmemorial. Also, the number of deaths will continue to grow, and we cannot list thousands of names in an article. I also feel that this is no different than the articles about list of deceased from Virginia Tech massacre and etc. This should be treated no differently. Staglit (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a pretty clear memorial. Although this article may not have been created by a grieving relative, it still serves no purpose but to memorialize the victims of a tragedy. If everyone on the list had an article, that would be different, but these are generally non-notable people. There are more appropriate places for this content; an encyclopedia is not a good fit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here. Well sourced article. Covering deaths after a highly notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing user - I see that this article has been nominated quite recently in late January with a Keep result. You find it at the talk page. I think this nomination is too soon. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article then was about 6 people killed at the protests. By now, it is a list of over 100 people killed there. With such a different scope, a new discussion is not unwarranted. I did note the original discussion and the "keep" at the start of my nomination. Fram (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but in this case a different scope means more inclusive and correct than the original keep discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not a different scope. It is the same scope, only the amount of people covered under this scope is now bigger. Why should this change anything? We're not made of paper; 6 people or 6000 makes no difference, in principle.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Titanic casualty list is notable because it has received an enormous amount of attention. This event doesn't reach that level of notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How would you measure the amount of attention? I do think that both Passengers of the RMS Titanic and people killed during Euromaidan received outstanding amounts of attention, much higher than average accident, with all members of the list receiving particular coverage on their own — NickK (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think Euromaidan has gotten the intense, sustained scrutiny of Titanic. Others at this level are the dead at the Alamo and the 300 at Thermopylae (though of course there were other Greeks who fought and died there). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking in terms of number of sources, I do believe it did. There were many initiatives of coverage of Euromaidan events and biographies of people killed there, including English-language ones. There are streets and squares named in their honour (see uk:Площа Героїв Майдану) and monuments erected in their memory (the first one is uk:Пам'ятник Небесній сотні (Буда)). There was an initiative to award the title of the Hero of Ukraine to all mentioned here. Unlike victims of various accidents, there are places named in their honour, thus the nature of coverage is closer to the one of the 300 of Thermopylae. If you think anything important is lacking, please provide what exactly is needed — NickK (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep This article is of a great memorial and educational value for any citizen of the world. Obaymar 21:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep This is not merely a memorial but it is well linked with the history of killings and other important and deciding events of Euromaidan. The article is also well sourced. Presently, there are monument and numerous streets and squares in Ukraine named after some of these people or after Heaven's Hundred, and so an increasing interest to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valizka (talk • contribs) 11:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all people in the list received a high level of coverage, including English-language sources (for example, the website http://nebesnasotnya.com.ua/en/ contains bios of all on this list), all of them have received more than trivial media coverage in Ukrainian and most of them in English (like this, this, this or this), and there was even media coverage in such languages as Chinese (like this website), Greek or Czech. As all members of this list have more than trivial media coverage like biographic articles for each of them, coverage in national and international media, there is no doubt all of this people are notable, although most are notable for only one event. According to WP:NLIST and WP:BIO1E list of such people is appropriate — NickK (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event, many sources. Five interwikies. NickSt (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote WP:NOTMEMORIAL: "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." If this article meets notability requirements, then the notmemorial policy is not grounds for deletion. As the people killed during Euromaidan were the subject of intense media coverage and caused an intense political reaction, I would say notability requirements have been met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the fact that each individual death is low encyclopedic relevance. Including this memorial-article would be a bad precedent for other Wikipedia articles. Sietecolores (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of the keep comments make the argument to delete this more eloquently than I ever could, e.g. "all people in the list received a high level of coverage, including English-language sources (for example, the website http://nebesnasotnya.com.ua/en/ contains bios of all on this list)"; that site is a pure memorial site, including the sorrow ribbon in the corner; furthermore, it is an Ukranian site which has translated its content in English, hardly evidence of notability outside Ukraine (which may in itself be sufficient, but the "there is English language coverage" gives a different impression than what it truly is), and finally and most importantly, this site is not a reliable source at all, so using it to strengthen a "keep" argument is rather baseless. It is good that such sources exist; bu that doesn't mean that they are a valid argument to have a Wikipedia article on the same subject. Fram (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited coverage in Chinese, Greek and Czech, with all these media located definitely outside Ukraine. Some other media provided detailed bios of all people killed during Euromaidan, for example, Gazeta Polska from Poland. Picking a random person from the list (Roman Senyk, a good example of WP:BIO1E, as he did nothing notable before Euromaidan), there were media reports on this person in Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland, detailed information), Mir i Politika (Russia, detailed information), ITN (UK, detailed information), Le Figaro (France), El Mundo (Spain), Zeit (Germany), PAP (Poland) RFI Romania, DW Serbia, Huffington Post Italy, Tut.BY (Belarus) i24 News (Israel), TVNoviny (Slovakia), Polskie Radio (Poland), Taipei Times (Taiwan), Jeune Nation (France), Belsat (Belarus), 20 minutes (Switzerland), 3:AM Magazine (France), Gulf Times (Qatar), ReallyRocketScience (USA), Affari Italiani (Italy) Europe1 (France), SME (Slovakia), Wiadomosci (Poland), Today (Italy), Topky (Slovakia), La proxima guerra (Italy), Ahram (Egypt), TM News (Italy), Aktualne.sk (Slovakia), Oggi Notizie (Italy), CoulLoud (Taiwan), La Voix de la Russie (Russia), Vesti (Serbia), Slaq (Armenia)... and I stopped somewhere at page 35 of Google results. To sum up: 18 countries (Armenia, Belarus, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, UK, USA), including 3 providing detailed information (Poland, Russia and UK). Of course, not all media reports were detailed: some were just a few sentences, but the coverage was definitely international, and for this particular person media of at least three countries provided detailed information that could be used as a source for an encyclopedic article — NickK (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this discussion with the intention of seeing if I could close it. After reading the discussion I can't see a consensus, but I do find myself very persuaded by what Fram is saying, so even though I don't think there's a consensus at the moment I do think we should delete the list. However, this comment is made after the 168-hour point so whoever does close it will need to decide whether or not to give it any weight.
I feel that many of the "keep" !voters above are conflating the notability of the event, and the coverage of the people, with a need to keep the list. I think this misses Fram's whole point, and a close reading of the debate leaves the nomination statement unrefuted.—S Marshall T/C 11:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that many of the "keep" !voters above are conflating the notability of the event, and the coverage of the people, with a need to keep the list. - It can be said that way, if you wish. But this is not an argument to delete the list. The nomination statement is basically a rehash of WP:UNENCYC with an (IMHO misguided) sprinkle of WP:NOTMEMORIAL to make it sound like it is grounded in policy. It isn't. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with Marshall's reasoning. Much of the political and media coverage I mentioned above was specifically about those killed during Euromaidan, not Euromaidan in general. Many sources have been given proving this, and the article itself lists some specific political reactions. I believe that the article could be cleaned up so its less of a list and more of an article about those killed, but this does not require deletion to do. To the contrary, deletion will only make this much more difficult as all of the information will have to be gathered from scratch. Also, Fram was making a WP:NOTMEMORIAL argument to justify deletion. Many of the arguments were about why the not-memorial policy is not a valid argument for deletion, so I feel that Fram's point has been addressed.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not memorial is a valid argument for deletion, but it may not be applicable here. However, some of the keeps disagree with you, like the most recent one: "Strongly keep This article is of a great memorial and educational value for any citizen of the world. Obaymar 21:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)" Fram (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that his article meets notability requirements, so notmemorial does not apply. While the specific keep vote you listed does not necessarily back my argument, several of the other keep votes did. Many users have listed sources establishing notability or have otherwise argued that his article does not violate notmemorial. Also, I feel that focusing on that specific vote does not do justice to the argument presented by the majority of those who have voted keep Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes many people have died butWP:NOTMEMORIAL does seem to apply here, the event may be noteable but the deaths are not noteable on the same scale so may fail to meet WP:NOTE as well - both of these are positions for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how do you define that "deaths are not noteable"? — NickK (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are these deaths not notable? Several users have presented sources a large number of sources regarding those killed, and you can't just claim non-notability when there are still sourcing regarding the subject standing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, Well sourced & passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Obviously well sourced article following a notable international event that has ramifications for future world events. Regardless, it was already nominated for deletion, and the end result was KEEP. Someone must really not want this article around. § DDima 02:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.