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 snow close No support from other than nominator Nobody Ent 13:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of assassinated people[edit]

List of assassinated people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTDIR WIkipedia is not a list  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  18:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator does not appear to understand what a directory is. This isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_successful_coups_d'état, nominated by the same person, WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant and the list meets WP:LSC as a list on a single topic, all of whose entries are notable. Dricherby (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article isn't a directory. Passes WP:LSC. →Bmusician 01:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A list of notable people grouped together with a notable attribute. Lugnuts (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This is a good list of people on here. This is considered a list people, in a specific country, who were assassinated and killed in that country. However, This should NOT be a directory for people, but a simple list of people on who were assassinated. So overall stating this, I would agree with you all. It should be moved, or modified in a different form. The article would be best cleaned up and there should be a silver lock if needed. Vmkcheat —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep, doesn't fall under notdirectory. Can't see any issues here. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Complements Category:Assassinated people (cf. WP:NOTDUP). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not going to lie as this article is a massive unsourced mess with no defining criteria on "assassination". It is a valid encyclopedic topic however, as the topic of people assassinated clearly meets WP:GNG, and with a misleading argument for deletion as WP:NOTDIR is mainly used for business/local lists with dubious notability, not lists like this. Cleanup should be discussed on the talk page though as it may get listed for deletion again if this list stays as a massive mess. Secret ^account 03:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, nonsensical and meritless AFD. The nominator couldn't even be bothered to add basic punctuation to his "rationale", let alone anything of substance. This is so far below basic standards of thoughtfulness and effort for an experienced editor as to be insulting, particularly when he doesn't bother to elaborate or respond to any of the commenters. If he spits out this kind of garbage AFD again, he should be blocked for disruption. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The punctuation skills of the nominator are irrelevant. Dricherby (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to the time and effort he took to post this. He's not a newbie, and as his fanciful signature should attest, he's not without basic skills here. WP:ADHOM is irrelevant because I am not addressing his conduct here as a way to defend the merits of the list, but because I find his conduct unacceptable in and of itself. postdlf (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment First,Postdlf, as a sysop, you should be aware of WP:CIV which is policy. But, let me spell it out for you.

a.)NOTDIR is policy , that is consensus that wikipedia articles are not be to lists. This is a list,nothing more.
b.)Consensus now needs to be shown that it should stay and WHY so far,that hasn't happened. Most of this is attacks on myself and the nomination. As consensus has decreed Wikipedia articles can't be lists, you should all be showing consensus why it should stay or else it goes. ....that clear enough for you, Postdlf?  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  20:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIR states "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject". This was pointed out to you in the second keep !vote on this AFD. I don't know how much clearer it can be put. Please think about familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• KoshVorlon, you have misunderstood WP:NOTDIR. It does not forbid all lists but only lists of "loosely associated topics" and the other sorts of lists that it talks about. Further, I disagree with your statement that "Most of this is attacks on myself and the nomination". The attacks are unfortunate but, most of the comments are statements that the list isn't a directory so doesn't fall under WP:NOTDIR. Dricherby (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) WP:CIVIL does not mean that editors are to be free of criticism for their poor conduct, and I criticized you above for your failure to take the time to post a thoughtful and substantive AFD, because yours is at best WP:JUSTAVOTE and a WP:VAGUEWAVE.

  You have now further made a completely preposterous statement that "consensus has decreed Wikipedia articles can't be lists...", which I cannot believe is a good faith interpretation of WP:NOTDIR given that its own introduction says "Wikipedia encompasses many lists..." See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, and Wikipedia:Featured lists, all of which would be curious things to exist on WP if lists should not. You could also see any number of AFDs regarding lists or lists of people that are leaning "keep" or have been already closed as "keep". I don't see how you could not be aware of any of that. Which means either you were so incredibly careless in starting this AFD so as to not take note of any relevant AFDs or to read any relevant guidelines and policies, including the one you cited; or you knew all of this and proceeded instead, making this purely disruption to prove a point if not outright trolling. Either way, this is completely unacceptable. We can take it to WP:ANI if I haven't made my point, but the fact that this AFD (and another list AFD you started at the same time that has already been SNOW-closed) has received no support at all should alone tell you something. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: It's hardly bad faith, NOTDIR is a policy because consensus has declared it to be so. While lists are allowed, not as articles, but (per the text):

Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia' that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject.
This is not a list of links to articles, it's simply a list. Per that same policy, that list cannot remain here. This is hardly a pointy nom, nor made in bad faith. It's simply enforcing existing policy. If you disagree with the policy,feel free to post an RFC on it and change it. Otherwise, show a reason why it must stay. Once again, discuss the article, not it's nominator.  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  21:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, every single person's name in the list is a link to an article. It is absolutely a list of links to articles. Dricherby (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is either very good trolling or an inability to read and understand policy which is so severe that it warrants topic bans or maybe a block for the good of the project. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia does indeed have lists, as even the nominator has since realized, and there is no such thing as an 'attack' on the nomination; the nom process has been quite rightly criticized. What that might mean about the nominator's character, or politics, or any substantive basis of ad hominem complaints (rather than the "You gave me an owie" whining that wikiwarriors employ to supposedly strengthen their cases), is purely in the minds of those reading it, where WP quite rightly cannot govern. It is a relief to me to see such a clear cut case of insufficiently competent editing and stubborn and contentious contradiction (eg "This is not a list of links to articles, it's simply a list.", which is empirically in error) that AGF has become irrelevant. Anarchangel (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KoshVorlon is now repeatedly trying to hide your commment and that of Suriel's. I don't see an end to this outside of ANI; earlier he was edit-warring regarding the close of his other meritless AFD (see history here). I'm in the middle of something in the real world...can someone else start a thread there? postdlf (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, you're both edit warring over hiding a couple of lines of text. That quite simply shouldn't be happening, you both know better. Worm^TT≡talk≡ 13:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:KoshVorlon. postdlf (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2012 (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.