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, default to Keep. Walton^talk 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of passengers and crew onboard RMS Titanic[edit]

List of passengers and crew onboard RMS Titanic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Listcruft diluted only marginally by some images. Titanic people who have Wikipedia articles are already listed in the RMS Titanic article, or they could be in a category. -- RHaworth 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Listcruft filled with non-notable people. I agree with the nom. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only want to remember the first-class snobby gits then? Brent Ward 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia isn't a memorial tombstone. Though I wouldn't mind knowing the name of the guy who drowned because Jack and Rose couldn't save him. Bulldog123 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Corvus cornix 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's not with the fact the list contains nn people, but rather this reads more like a memorial. Only a web link to a list like that in the parent article should be enoughJForget 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. I also hate listings that are "Lastname, First"; it's just too hard to read, even if it makes alphabetization easier. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for a number of reasons. #1: No damn excuse for not citing to anything. I remember a list of the victims -- all 1,517 of them -- in the appendix of A Night to Remember, the first great book about the disaster. #2: This is a list of the PASSENGERS and CREW, with no distinction between who survived and who perished. #3: There were more than 2,200 people on board, and about 1,517 died... all scanned in, but is there any insight as to who any of these poor souls were? It's as offensive as when James Cameron said "I'm the King of the World", then asked everyone to bow their heads at the Academy Awards in memory of the victims... Finally, #4: What's next, a list of everyone who was at the office on 9/11? Mandsford 01:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm its new, i was gonna include that later! Give it longer than three days--Brent Ward 22:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Mandsford has argued. The division by point of embarkation simply makes it clear this is indiscriminate. I am inclusionist with lists that at least have a rationale; this does not. (Encyclopedic would list survivors and victims, for example. I note that Casualties of the RMS Titanic sinking was successfully prodded. I might have argued against that at AFD, but I'm not inclined to DRV either.)--Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate listcruft --Breno ^talk 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the primary author of the page seems not to understand Wikipedia sourcing, however the information on the list is notable and useful. The complete list is a more important list than the list only of passengers with Wikipedia articles. --Pleasantville 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It took me ages to do that! --Brent Ward 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how about people help this fellow source this list rather than dumping on him for not following all the WP acronyms. It's not like this material is defamatoy. (I would myself, except I have this reservation at a beach motel . . . )

This would be more in the spirit of WP:BITE than the above discussion. --Pleasantville 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh but im not biting im just saying stop slagging it off; its only just been made; im gonna do it all professional like with tables and pictures, where i can find em. --Brent Ward 00:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pleasantville meant that the AfD regulars should go easy on you, not the other way around. --Breno ^talk 06:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Does someone have a principled response to the question: how is this different from List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, which has survived Afd? While a certain essay says other crap exists is not a good argument to keep, but another essay WP:RECENT argues that if we keep the recent we should be especially keen to keep the documented past. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My response might not be principled but I'll just say it, despite any flaming I might get for it: It's not different. That AFD clearly survived because people mistakenly believe wikipedia is a memorial service of some kind. Plus, they don't want to be politically incorrect. Give it 6 months for emotions to cool down, and everyone who registered for the sake of promoting their friend's postmortem "fame" to leave, and that list will go too. A list of victims of every tragedy that took place is just plain inconceivable. Bulldog123 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I see your point on the VT list, I have to point out the lists are a little different to each other. VT have the name, age, location, and discription of injury for each victim, along with 90-odd newspaper references for the article. Titanic does not have anything more than the person's name, and besides the passengers and crew who already have their own article, it is very unlikely that this list will ever be made more detailed and sourced. Not for 2,200 of them. --Breno ^talk 06:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, im working on that; I'm doing lots of work on building articles about Titanic passengers Brent Ward 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Put references and other stuff. I have seen many other lists of people in Wikipedia. I understand that they are many not-notable people in there but many other lists are worse. It's an interesting list after all. -- Magioladitis 08:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I didn't know that this article exsisted, and I am currently working on a List of passengers on my talk page. I'd like to know whether or not I should just stop working on mine. I have a primary source (Encyclopedia Titanica) and I've been trying to include important information like names and links to passengers who are listed in the category box, and whatnot. I'm going to keep working until I have some sort of consensus. In addition, the passenger list on that page is one from Col. Archibald Gracie's book, and unfortunately full of errors (mixing up families and listing adults as children and vice versa, including people who were not passengers, duplicating people who are known by two names and some other errors) Morhange 14:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh Morhange, please keep going with you're list; its far superior to mines, which is just a name Brent Ward 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So, Morhange, you agree that the article must stay, don't you? A list with the passengers must be in Wikipedia. After that the quality and the accuracy of the article depends on the editors. -- Magioladitis 08:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, I agree it should stay, provided it has more information, ie listing who survived and who did not, etc. This is what I am attempting with mine. Morhange 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, The sinking of the Titanic is a major, world-famous historical event, and there is no reason not to recognise and acknowledge those who were involved, as those of any other major historical event would be. Instead, improvements should be made to the current article, providing more detailed and accurate information, Morhange is on the right track with the article she is currently working on.Nips 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Listcruft is not policy, and this list doesn't even appear to meet the criteria set out by Listcruft. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is a discussion, not everything that is mentioned has to be policy. I'm guessing that whoever did put "listcruft" is just citing it because it sums up their beliefs on such lists, rather than using it to point out some type of policy violation. But for the record, keeping this list really does open up a can of worms, because now List of MIT graduates is VERY well supported for creation. A huge amount of MIT graduates are famous enough to have a wikipedia article, so according to everyone, I guess it's ok that 80% are non-notables. Bulldog123 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why not article seems fine, if anything reformat. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - looks useful (to Titanic enthusiasts), would be even more so if it was class="wikitable sortable" so that people could analyse by each of the fields of the table. PamD 09:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested by this ideology that everything potentially useful merits an article. Bulldog123 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Take a look to that list List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 that has never nominated for deletion. for the four lists mentioned until now (victims of a massacre, MIT graduates, casualties, passengers of titanic) i find the latter the most interesting and worthy to be in Wikipedia. Maybe we can put some statistics instead (e.g. how many passengers in each class, men-women, etc) but i still find the full list quite interesting. I would vote delete if a ever a list with MIT graduates appears and i think the list with the victims must be deleted. Magioladitis 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Important historical fact.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 10:17, 6 July 2007 (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.