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 of the debate was a bit tricky, but I'll try closing this now. (Closing the first AFD debate was much easier, when there was a clear keep consensus.) On raw vote count there is not a real consensus for outright deletion, and the main objection has been that Wikipedia is not a memorial. I believe that the objection is to the list of names in the article. However, the article has a lead section which describes the recovery of bodies and treatment of the wounded, material which is not really covered by the "memorial" argument. I will therefore call this a merge of the lead section only to the "casualties" section of 7 July 2005 London bombings, and redirect there. The list of names will be dropped, but I'll add the BBC News link to the main article as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-10. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings/2005-07-10.

WP:NOT a memorial. Lists of victims are unencyclopedic and not generally individually notable, as per the precedant of Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York (now on WP:DRV). The opening paragraphs should be merged into 7 July 2005 London bombings. The list of victims should be deleted. It is very sad that they died, and highly reprehensible that such an attack was made, but Wikipedia is not the proper place to memorialize them. DES ^(talk) 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Friday (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is there anything link this for the World Trade Centre attacks? There should be consistency across attacks. If there is not, then delete, but if there is, then keep. --LeftyG 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [[1]]--FRS 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per previous AFD [[2]] which was approx 40:10 in favor of keeping; this is an informative, NPOV article FRS 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT a memorial. The list of names is unencyclopedic, while the other details in this article fit well in 7 July 2005 London bombings. In the articles relating to the incidents on September 11, 2001, casualties are summarized in September 11, 2001 attacks#Fatalities. Follow precedent, and avoid unencyclopedic list-cruft, however poignant or sad the subject is. -Rebelguys2 22:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per What Wikipedia is not. FCYTravis 22:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't WP:NOT trump AFD in any case? -R. fiend 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The narrative could be used in the article on the attack, but NOT is policy. Put a link to an external source in the article. -- goatasaur 22:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not see how a simple list of names is a "memorial". We are not honoring anyone here, just listing verified facts in an impartial manner. If we are not to list casualties in Wikipedia articles, the policy should say that. Right now it doesn't. Kaldari 22:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives. does say that. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anything about lists of casualties. It says "memorials". Whether lists of casualties are considered memorials depends mostly on their context, IMO. And I don't think in this case the context has anything to do with "honoring" anyone, thus I don't see this being a memorial. Of course as long as the policy is ambigiously worded, it will solely be a matter of opinion. Kaldari 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete little point in having a policy if we don't abide by it. could probably keep the narrative however, per Goatasaur. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not a memorial to the dead.  (aeropagitica)  23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a memorial. Send to Wikicities if you must. Radiant_>|< 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Do you guys consider Kent State shootings to be in violation of WP:ISNOT for listing the names of the four students who were killed? I'm just trying to get an idea here for what constitutes a "memorial". Kaldari 03:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kent State one is an article, which reads like a newspaper clipping. This reads like a placard at a kiosk in a memorial. Delete Ruby 03:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? What makes an article cross that boundary? Kaldari 07:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right off the top of my head, when the article is written with an emphasis on the suffering and loss of the families, as if pandering to their grief, instead of dispassionately discussing all the facts of the incident. Ruby 12:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I basically agree. In the Kent State article the victims are mentioned within the text to help further explain the incident (that being said, I think the articles on the victims could be merged back in), while in this example it's just a list of names thrown together. Now there probably is some gray area between the two examples, bu tthis article just isn't in it. -R. fiend 05:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Impressive article. If wikipedia does this stuff, you don't have to know where to look. Golfcam 04:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. *drew 05:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge text into main article. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What constitutes a memorial? Kaldari 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with the list of 9/11 victims and so on. WP:ISNOT a memorial, and the list of names adds nothing to our understanding of the event itself. This looks to me lika an example of systemic bias: nobody is pressing for a list of Tsunami victims, after all. It is problematic, though, since the chances of a full list of casualties making it seem to increase as the number reduces, making it more likely that some minor incident will have a full list than would be the case for a major tragedy. In the end, we do not usually have lists of people who have no independent claim to notability. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 08:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:CSB. Stifle 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. Sad but not encyclopaedic. Also, the edit link at the top of this section seems to be screwy. Proto t c 11:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge: I'm not certain whether some of those commenting above have actually looked at the article, since it is not simply "a list of the victims", it is also a description of the process of identifying them, amongst other things. Just deleting this artice would lose important information which was split out of the main article for reasons of length. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator suggested a merge of what content is appropriate. Yes, some of the content here is good, and should be merged into 7 July 2005 London bombings if it's not already. Friday (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. The paragraphs on how the victims were identified and related encyclopedic content should be merged intoi another article, I think 7 July 2005 London bombings. This articel should IMO be deleted, and the actual list of casualties not included. if there is a reliable list of casualties posted elsewhere, that should probably be linked from the merged articel (as would have been needed anyway, to source this list). DES ^(talk) 16:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to July 2005 London bombings, deleting list of victims. The list of victims duplicates the list given at the BBC site (see first link), and is probably derived from it: I do not see that there is any encyclopedic value to the list. Note that the page as a whole is not a memorial: this page should not be deleted on that basis without giving a chance for a merge of the non-memorial information on the page. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge information to July 2005 London bombings, deleting list of victims per WP:NOT. Also note WP:NPOV is not negotiable, and the list elevates the people killed here into "encyclopedic" while something like List of civilians killed in Israeli police actions is still a redlink. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before anyone objects about GFDL, there are ways to make a D & M comply. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Ezeu 05:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, precedent and WP:NOT. --Aaron 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge I don't see any grieveing families here. The top of the article is almost certainly too long, and duplicates too much in other articles. I think a merge is a second best, because these lists will unbalance whatever target is chosen; but why throw away this? If the sister of one of these people becomes Prime Minister, we'll want this to link to. Septentrionalis 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the sister of one of these people becomes Prime Minister, we'll want this to link to. " Does that strike anyone else as a really bad reason to keep an article? We could use that logic on any high school student vanity page ("this person may someday be Prime Minister, we'll want this information then!"). If bombing victim Reginald Worthingham IV's sister becomes PM, we can link to the main article: "Prime Minister Victoria Worthingham's brother Reginald was killed in the 7 July 2005 London bombings." The other names won't add anything. -R. fiend 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge text into main article. --SFrank85 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but drop list. Don't just delete; it would leave a gaping hole in 7_July_2005_London_bombings#Casualties. Melchoir 10:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Informative and useful Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of names is neither informative nor useful. Melchoir 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possible transwiki to Wikisource. It is sad that these people are dead, but no more encyclopaedic than a list of everybody who has ever died of cancer, or ridden a bicycle. Lord Bob 20:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the lead section? Shouldn't we preserve that in the main article? Melchoir 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I must object to your statement. A list of the names of people who died in a notable event is more encyclopaedic than a list of names of people who did not die in a notable event. Is it encyclopedic enough to include in Wikipedia? Depends on the circumstances (see Kent State shootings). Such rediculous equivocations are not helpful to the debate. Obviously there is a difference between this list and a list of everyone who ever died of cancer. The question is: does the difference matter enough to make it worth including in Wikipedia? Kaldari 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per deletion of previous lists of disaster victims such as List of Hillsborough disaster casualties. Qwghlm 09:53, 31 January 2006 (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.