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 keep. Those advocating outright deletion were very much in the minority. It should be noted that the fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial does not proclude covering those who died in notable events- merely that people should not be included merely as a memorial. The overwhelming consensus was that these people were collectively notable as a result of the circumstances of their deaths. That leaves the form in which the material should be presented. There was little agreement as to whether a merge was appropriate given the present size of Virginia Tech massacre with some vigorous opposition to any merge. This is no doubt an issue that should be revisited once some time has passed and the articles about the massacre have reached stable sizes, when a merge may become appropriate. As such I am closing the discussion as "keep" without prejudice to continuing or future discussion of a proposed merge. WjBscribe 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre[edit]

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP:NOT a memorial Flavourdan 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would once it's unprotected. CINEGroup 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's your real argument? Merge or Delete? Do you argue to delete the list from the main article or argue that the list is not long enough?? --Neo-Jay 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, wikipedia is not a memorial, it's very simple CINEGroup 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then you are arguing to completely remove the list form the main article, Virginia Tech massacre. I strongly oppose. A Wikipedia article about a crime usually include the names of the victims. It is not a war or disaster that causes thousands of victims. Please stop using September 11 to support your argument. That's completely different.--Neo-Jay 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) ][reply]
per Neo-Jay Chris 05:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "completely different", and other similar things (the Haditha killings, which, despite being a group of US marines going around slaughtering civilians, was NOT called a massacre) do not have lists of victims. Quite simply put, it is people trying to put inappropriate material into Wikipedia. Moreover, several victim lists are now up for being deleted because editors became aware of their existance and now they're being found and, likely, excised. Titanium Dragon 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you misunderstand the principle that Wikipedia is not a Memorial. It says: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Please read it carefully: subjects of ... articles must be notable. The subject of the list is a group of people. If the group is notable, i,e, "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the (group)", then the group can be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We do not need to prove that every single person in the list is notable. Please remember, WP:MEMORIAL is just a footnote of Wikipedia:Notability. Its goal is to exclude the non-notable content from Wikipedia. It is of course acceptable if editors establish articles to honor departed notable person, or notable group of persons. If you want to delete this list, you must prove that the group of people is not notable, i.e., has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the group. I don't think that you can do that. BTW, if the complete list of September 11 attacks or Haditha killings also has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject, then of course it can also be the subject of Wikipedia article. --Neo-Jay 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator made no coherent explanation of why the article violates any policy, so badgering the people who are saying it should be kept is extremely unfair. The nominator needs to include an explanation of why this specific page violates the policy. He has not done so. Linking to a policy by itself is not helpful. Johntex\talk 02:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HokieRNB explicitly said "Please include a reason why you think this list should be kept or deleted" (italics added for emphasis). He's not badgering the people who are saying this list should be kept. If he's badgering, he's badgering all those who are voting without explanation. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 13:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ASSuming that we are going to list now every single victim in every shooting and every terrorist attack, including every person ever murdered, and every soldier in iraq, even down to the old man who was murdered last week right? WHAT makes ANY murder victim notable? I think anyone would argue that ANY person you know PERSONALLY would be more notable than anyone you didn't know. MY dead mother is more notable then the people at VA Tech, why? Because I knew her. The people at the world trade centers are more noptable then the people at VA Tech, why? Because it was over 2500 of them. Ego makes notability. Let's list all the victims of the 1969 mcdonalds attack in which 20 people were killed. Let's list all the people the IRA has killed. Fook it, let's make Wikipedia a memorial which Jimbo has said, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MEMORIAL

I'm ASSuming thats easy enough for you ALL to understand now okay? CINEGroup 23:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop SHOUTING IN ALL CAPITALS. It does not make up for the fact that you have advanced no meritous reason for deletion. Johntex\talk 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the tone of CINEGroup's comment, it did have merit. He did cite policy. --Hemlock Martinis 03:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


We believe that 32 dead is notable, but 2500 isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=world+trade+center+victims

NOTHING CINEGroup 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should create an article on the World Trade Center victims, not for memorial purposes, but to get a real sense of the scope of the catastrophe. A long list is much stronger image than a quick number and potentially helpful for people doing research, which after all is a major reason for the existence of encyclopedias. --164.107.223.217 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To create a strong, personal, emotional response in the reader? To have the reader stand in awe of the staggering amount of victims not by presenting the number of dead but by listing them and providing pictures? Last time I checked, a list of names like that is a memorial, and your intent is what memorials are supposed to do. Which is not what we're supposed to be doing. Cheeser1 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this has now gone very quiet after I posted right above. Makes you realize, wikipedia is not a memorial. This page was doing edits everyu few seconds for the last 2 hours. Nothing now in last 5 minutes? Or is someone off to rush and make a page for all the world trade center victims also? CINEGroup 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think people have been put off by the level of excitement shown on this page. There's no need to shout and please remember we're here to get a consensus not drown each other out with capital letters and what-have-you. Mallanox 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter what consensus is reached, Jimbo himself will kill the page as he has stated his memorial thoughts on wikipedia. He has deleted MANY a memorial page. CINEGroup 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there really is nothing to get worked up about. Mallanox 23:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CINEGroup, if I saw an assertion like that in an article I would remove it or tag it with [citation needed]. Do you have any sources to back up your claim that (a) Jimbo deletes memorial pages (b) there is any similarity whatsoever to a memorial page? Johntex\talk 02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a event of historic proportion not like hundreds of similar massacres, because it recent it may not yet seem like it, not all the names have been released and as they do the coverage of each of the people who were victims will become greater in detail this isn't something run of the mill, let's not rush here ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 00:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as original article is too long now. Needs to be split. Rockstar (T/C) 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - newer articles (esp. current events) have changing content. Say there's a list being maintained separately, and maybe one in the article itself, and there is content that overlaps between the two articles pertaining to more than just a list of names. That's highly problematic. Further, we have to be reasonable: how much of what you just listed would even be encyclopedic? If one of the victims dies at a hospital, as opposed to en route, what encyclopedic merit does that have? What scholars study that? Cheeser1 02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to that is simply to not have the list in the main article, but only in the sub article. That makes it easy to keep the list up to date. The reason someone might care about when the victim dies is that it implies something about the accuracy and force of the assault. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johntex (talk • contribs) 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

*Keep It's not a memmorial if you include the killer himself. He counts as one of the casualties. The article is informative. Malamockq 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm changing my vote to delete because it's obvious that the article is turning into a memmorial, which is NOT allowed. Delete it as per that reason. A place of mourning the victims is not appropriate for wikipedia. Malamockq 00:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think that this is a memorial. A memorial would call them victims rather than casualties. At the moment, Wikipedia's list is easiest to find and most complete, and for those who may be distant friends needing to check, this should stay up. As a page of information and reference. Which is exactly what Wikipedia IS supposed to be. newsong 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't even know why we're discussing this. The list does not violate any policies. The list is not a memorial, it's funny how people see things. It's a list of the victims with mini-bios of the victims and injured. Having such information in the massacre article won't fit correctly, and most of the victims were too young to have done much in their lifetimes that might fill a per person article. I'm assuming bad faith for the request of deletion. --Witchinghour 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support your recreating of that list as well as I'm sure it's useful to somebody, say at least people researching disasters and as encyclopedias are primarily useful research tools that catalog the knowledge of we humans, the more factual information, the merrier and so yes, if I you recreate that, you have my strong support. --24.154.173.243 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now I think it should be simply kept. The main article is too large already for a merge; all victim info there should be deleted except for a link directing to this article. --Yksin 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep What's the big deal? It's a subpage of Virginia Tech massacre which has gotten too big? JeffBurdges 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops, all the information is still in the main article. So I vote to postpone the deletion vote for one month or so , i.e. keep but renominate after at least one month. JeffBurdges 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren't. Just because people come looking for it doesn't mean we should have it; if it isn't notable (like this), violates wikipedia policy (like this), ect. Seriously, there are plenty of other places to get this information. In any event, its already in the main article, so its not like it isn't available. Please make arguments on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Titanium Dragon 19:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that you're also agitating to remove the list from the main article.Chunky Rice 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that is an issue to take up there, not here. It is entirely irrelevant in this discussion. If it belongs in the main article or nowhere, it belongs in the main article or nowhere, not in an article that doesn't merit its own entry in Wikipedia. Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not compassionate; it is supposed to comply with its guidelines, be NPOV, be well-written, and be encylopedic. An encyclopedia would not include junk like this, because it simply isn't notable. In a year when someone looks this up, they aren't going to be looking for the list of victims names. It simply is not notable in an encyclopedia. Titanium Dragon 19:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By this argument, no mention should be ever be made of the name of any victim of any murderer unless that victim was "notable" enough to merit an article of his or her own. (This is of coures assuming that the murderer was him/herself "notable" enough to merit an article.) --Yksin 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not addressing "Wikipedia", as it is not an actual entity. I was addressing the people involved in maintaining it. You have managed to answer ZERO of my questions with regards to how keeping the article hurts the site. If articles being "well-written" is a rule on the site, then you've got bigger problems than whether or not to delete this article. Over 50% of the articles here have glaringly poor writing in them. Get to work. =) Godheval 19:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hurts the site because it is unencyclopedic and we have certain standards. NPOV is one of them, notability is another, ect. Basically, by complying with those guidelines we make Wikipedia reputable, a better source of information, ect. Including junk weakens all that. We have rules for a reason. Your argument holds no water because there are specific rules for Wikipedia which we follow for a reason. Titanium Dragon 20:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is scattered information on this page and several others. This information should be merged to create a central place but without losing information, such as ages and hometowns of victims.

That is not true. Not every bit of data can be considered knowledge, nor can every bit of knowledge be considered encyclopedic. Cheeser1
It has to have encyclopedic merit in its own right (as opposed to as a part of the article about the event in question). Else it's a memorial. That question is further addressed by some others who've already spoken (above). Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not a reason necessarily for something to be on Wikipedia. Cheeser1 21:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no reason to necessarily need a list for extra information about the victims. Right underneath an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which was already cited, is another important policy: Notability is not inherited. A list of victims may be encyclopedic to the article, but pseudo-biographies and pictures of all the victims, unless established to be important and encyclopedic with regard to the shooting simply do not merit being in Wikipedia, certainly not developed as a part of their own article/list. Cheeser1 21:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I've already registered my "vote"). Most of the policy references here, such as those you mention, are talking about "notability" (a problematic concept in & of itself, but I won't get into that here) in terms of independent articles. For example, just because radio station KXYZ is notable enough to merit its own article, doesn't mean "Morning program thus'n'such" that airs on radio staion KXYZ is notable enough to merit its own article.
Which makes sense, sure. Yet, as I mentioned in a comment above, many people seem to be taking the whole "notability" criteria to mean that if a given fact doesn't merit its own article, it shouldn't be mentioned. Hence, we shouldn't list the names of Virginia Tech shooting victims -- oh except maybe a couple of the professors who had achieved independent notability -- because they're not "notable" on their own. In the article on Cho, we shouldn't mention that Cho kept a pet fish because the pet fish isn't "notable" -- even though the article is ostensibly a biography, & the fact Cho kept fish is a biographical fact about him.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion about "notability" in this regard. But the fact is that always, always, what is notable is only notable because of its context. Nothing in this article, the main article, the Cho article, or on Wikipedia as a whole, has any notability outside of how it related to other people/places/things/events.
It's completely obvious to me that the names of Cho's victims are notable within the context of the main article just as much as the name of JFK's assassin is notable in a bio of him, or the names of Jack the Ripper's victims are notable in a story about Jack the Ripper. The question for me is not one of "are these names pertinent or not" but whether they should be merged with the main article or not. Arguing against the merge is that the article is already so large, & WP policy seems to be "if the article gets too large, break it up into subsidiary articles." But the intent of that seems to be in most cases that subsidiary articles are more-or-less considered part of the main article by reference. The only reason this article should be separate is because of that size consideration. But if the main article somehow magically shrinks inside, then yeah, of course it ought to be merged. Until then, its a keeper. --Yksin 22:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (Amend: Fish reference was apparently some other editor's misread of an article about Cho. I can find no media reference to it. --Yksin 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That's not the point. People's hometowns and college majors are not notable (or at least, notability has been in no way established). A list of victims is perhaps encyclopedic, but mini-biographies of each and every one are not. If a person merits entry, s/he will have one and we can use a wikilink in the list of names to indicate such. If a person does not, then there is no need for biographical information outside the scope of the encyclopedic event (name, role in the event, etc). If the only thing notable about them is that they were killed in the attack, then information about them in wikipedia should pertain only to the attack. A list of names can easily and cleanly be merged into the article (as demonstrated by a number of examples). There is simply no reason not to merge. Cheeser1 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, getting all mixed up about what "notability" means. By this argument, we should exclude the birthplaces, hometowns, educational affiliations, etc. of every other human being mentioned on Wikipedia. To me, the inclusion of such basic data vastly improves its encyclopedic value, while refraining from becoming a memorial complete with flowers & personal remembrances by each person's friends and family. --Yksin
I have not mixed up any notability, don't generate an absurd strawman and tell me how silly I must be. The fact is, they don't pass WP:BIO as far as I'm concerned, and are only notable in their connection to this particular happening. As such, they don't merit their own article(s) or their own biography(ies). People whose birthplace, background, etc may be notable (e.g. the shooter) ought to have these things expounded, and mentioning each victim's age or status (student, professor, etc) may be noteworthy with regard to the event, but something like "computer science major from Oklahoma" is irrelevant and not notable, however much respect I might have for the dead. And please don't forget that just because I read policy differently than you doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the burgeoning size of the main article is a pretty good reason.Chunky Rice 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although someone has very recently messed up the placement of the list, in Bath School disaster there is a list of victims that is well integrated into a long article. The magic of computers is that you can simply scroll down a page (or even skip all the way down, using a link), rendering "long" articles not so long, assuming we keep them organized - which we are capable of doing. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MEMORIAL. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The stuff in WP:NOT about memorials says, quote, "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The 32 victims are notable for having been the victims of the largest single-shooter mass shooting in U.S. history. That they were coincidentally fondly remembered by their friends/family does not detract from that. Hence, their "notability." --Yksin 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, it seems they fail anyway. They are notable as a group but most are not individually. Rockstar (T/C) 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! You got it! That's why they're in this article as a group instead of all with their own individual articles. Note also the WP:NOTE specifically says, "Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by Wikipedia's guidelines on the reliability of sources and trivia" (emphasis added). So this continual referencing of WP:NOTE is inappropriate when used to argue for the exclusion of the names of the individual victims from this article, because the topic of this article is all the victims of this massacre as a group, not any one of them as an individual. Nobody is arguing here that each of them is notable enough to warrant their own article -- because in that case yes, WP:NOTE applies. --Yksin 05:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Vietnam Veterans Memorial. If a list is unnecessary or constructed in a particular manner, it surely does serve as a memorial. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

The fact that there is a list does not justify having one here. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Cheeser1 12:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact that the other list is useful is significant in showing why this list will be useful as well. Calling it crap doesn't strengthen your argument. Your argument still is not persuasive. Johntex\talk 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but we're not talking about my argument here (you want to talk about that, comment where I stated my case). I'm just pointing out that the (unsigned) strong keep and that person's argument were given for reasons that are 100% against policy. And I didn't call anything crap, that's just an interwiki link that's convenient and easy to remember. You do little by nitpicking and pretending that this constitutes my argument as opposed to the obvious and clearly appropriate rebuttal of a statement that disagrees completely with wikipolicy. If you don't like it, then you'll just have to deal with it - it's policy, clear and simple, even if it is linked as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (if that bothers you so much, get the redirect removed). Maybe you're an admin, but I'm not afraid to tell you when you're way off base, buddy. Cheeser1 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to call people and their policy-citing arguments ridiculous, please try to cite policy in your argument, as I might remind everyone that this is not a vote, but a deliberation on policy. Cheeser1 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deliberation on policy. This is a deliberation on how to make the encyclopedia as good an useful source on this topic as possible. These concepts are similar but very definitely not the same. --Kizor 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point. I think I should consider it. I might change my opinion in afew hours. Thank you for raising that point. Padishah5000 17:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The main article is already too big. What should be removed from it in order to include the names of the victims? --Wordbuilder 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but the editors of the main article are trying to break off parts of it into sub-pages in order to keep the length under control. Forcing a merger back into it seems counter productive, to me.Chunky Rice 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course i am aware... unlike the comments along the lines of "I like this article, it is ueful information people should know" i actually read all the articles and only make comments on policy. Hence the reason i made the coment that it would be simple to intergrate this information into the main article and maintain it's size with a little clean up to the main article. Also, even if this were not the case (as i am looking for suitable splittable topics), Wikipedia is still not a a place for Obituaries and therefore this is not a good candidate for seperation. --Jimmi Hugh 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. No need to get snippy.Chunky Rice 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aplogies... just trying to turn the discussion towards policy so that we can all have a discussion about it's inclusion based upon the rules. --Jimmi Hugh 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all about policy. I don't like WP:NOT, though, because it's derivative of more fundamental policies, like WP:N, WP:ATT or WP:OR. As such, it expresses those policies as examples, but does not supercede those fundamentals. So, here the fundamental issue is WP:N. In my opinion, the way in which these people died and the coverage that it has received confers notability. It's not indiscriminate. When the vast majority of people die, they get an obit. Maybe a mention in the local paper. These people are the subject of several non-trivial articles from secondary reliable sources. I honestly don't see the argument against it, other than the WP:MEMORIAL bit and I already explained why going to the root policy is superior that that derivative one. Chunky Rice 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all individuals are notable enough for separate articles, but this list has a notable subject and they can be mentioned within it. --GunnarRene 19:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How do your reasons lead to the end of speedy keep via the criteria for speedy keep? Rockstar (T/C) 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't. Thank for reminding me. --GunnarRene 23:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. America is justifiably outraged by the killings, and emotions do run high, but we are talking about a bunch of people here most of whom were not notable before their deaths, and suddenly, the press is chasing every detail, however trivial, about the lives of same, provoked directly by the massacre. If that's not memorial, I don't know what is..... Ohconfucius 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think merge works anymore (though it was what I originally wanted), considering the original page is already at 60kb and needs to be broken up anyway. Rockstar (T/C) 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is not a vote, but a deliberation on policy, and that you ought to explain your position. Cheeser1 00:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break #2[edit]

Merge per precedent. There was a separate list for the Bath School disaster victims and this was merged per unanimous consensus. Since the Bath victims are almost 'double' the number of victims in Virginia (counting injured), there is no reason to create a freestanding article for the victims of this tragedy. If any of the victims are 'independently notable', then that merits a separate article for that individual. Otherwise, there's no basis to set forth anything further than name, age and occupation/student status and that can be fully articulated in the main article. Jtmichcock 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deletion debate on Bath School disaster victims article. Jtmichcock 17:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick reminder that Wikipedia is consensus based, and not precedent based. -Halo 19:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A list of victims can easily fit into the main article. Sure, the event itself was a notable and massive one, but a list of the victems and any small information on them is not notable. I recommend merging any notable information to the main article on the massacre. 5aret 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion[edit]

Seems there is no clear vote, but furthermore there is a little bit confusion. People voted for "keep", "delete", "merge", "delete or merge" or "keep or merge". We should have separated the Questions

  1. Should this information appear somehow in Wikipedia?
  2. If this information should appear, should it appear in an extra article (List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre) or in the main article (Virginia Tech massacre).

Hope you don't mind starting this again, but it might help getting a clearer discussion. --Abe Lincoln 09:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At last - a clear thinker! :-) (No disrespect to all the previous contributors, by the way) --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there's no clear concensus? Seems to me that it's quite clear that the concensus is to keep. I only see a few deletes in comparison to the keeps and merge. Dionyseus 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are many merges, that might mean keep the information but delete the article or if you must keep it, than rather in the main article, but I'd prefer to delete it. But most people want to keep it, I guess. The question is rather where to put it. Abe Lincoln 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should remember that this is not a vote. Cheeser1 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isn't a vote, but it sure does help determine concensus. The nominating statement itself merely points out WP:MEMORIAL, but the policy actually states that notable subjects are an exception, so the nominator had to provide an argument for why he believes the subjects to be non-notable, something that he did not do. Dionyseus 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is something that has to be proven, and until then, something is presumed non-notable. You can't prove something is non-notable so much as point to a lack of proof otherwise. Cheeser1 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should this information appear somehow in Wikipedia?[edit]

Yes. It should appear because though the individuals are not necessarily notable, the event is, and the identities of the victims is a notable fact with respect to the event. --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It should not appear as a distinct list either in a separate list article or in the main article, because of policy - WP:MEMORIAL. The event is notable, but the victims in and of themselves are not notable except for the manner of their death. WP:BIO apparently used to have a section that allowed the manner of a person's death to allow inclusion if notable, but it no longer does. The names could be included in a discursive manner within the body of the main article, where and if appropriate. There is no similar list for victims of other equally or more notable tragedies such as 911, Columbine, the Omagh bombing, etc. When such lists have been included, they've been removed. (Of course, WP:MEMORIAL and/or WP:BIO could always be amended). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are similar lists for victims of at least two other notable U.S. school shootings, and the notability of these was not contested until this debate was underway. Both have since been tagged with an AfD, which probably is a violation of WP:POINT. However, whether or not other similar lists exist is not a suitable argument for the notability (at least currently) of this list of people. They are all receiving an enormous amount of press, and clearly a lot of attention within wikipedia. Whom does it serve to delete this list at this point in history? HokieRNB 14:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Of course, there's nothing to prevent a prominent link to an external list of the victims, something I had to do on Omagh bombing after the list of victims was first moved from the main article to a sub-page then removed entirealy, as discussed here). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are a victims of a highly notable and heavily covered crime. This makes them notable, especially with the media coverage they are each receiving. --Falcorian (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the information is factual and verifiable, and it adds value to our coverage of the event. This seems like a textbook WP:NOT#PAPER situation. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose mentioning who was killed or wounded, but a simple list of names or presentation of too many details apart from their role in the massacre would run the danger of becoming a memorial.--FreeKresge 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that exception listed? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The factual information about the victims of this event should be included. At the least, this should include their names, ages, roles at Va Tech (student, faculty, etc) and where they were at the time of their murder. I don't see a reason to go much beyond that. This is an important part of the body of knowledge surrounding the Virginia Tech massacre. --Crunch 19:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think these details are important for the historical record. Believe it or not, some readers are interested in the victims as well as the murderer. The List of Charles Whitman's victims is an example of how the information should be presented. Last year, I consulted that list because one of those victims taught me calculus a few years before he was shot in Texas in 1966. (Yes, this means that I am older than most of you). Dirac66 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then where?[edit]

Not in the main article, as it ruins its flow and is inelegent. So put it on a separate page. This allows readers who want more detail to get more detail - without prventing an understanding of events by overloading the main article with too much detail. --Adam Brink 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has been well established that the list itself is notable, while individuals on it clearly do not pass that test merely by being a part of the list. Additionally, there has been so much activity in the main article (as well as this one), that as a simple matter of convenience it is helpful to have this piece separated out and developed on its own. Now that the facts have mostly been sorted out regarding the victims - how many, who, from where - this page probably doesn't need to go through much more editing and can stand as a point of reference from the main article. As is the nature of any encyclopedia, the usefulness of information is cyclical in nature, and over time (months?) the list can be edited down to just names and merged back into the main article. How can we achieve some closure to this debate? HokieRNB 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with placement in either the main article on the shootings, or in a standalone list (though preferably not both at the same time). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the victims should be mentioned in the Virginia Tech massacre timeline article and integrated into the text. This would put the focus on what is notable--the victims' role in the event. I oppose a simple list of the victims either as a separate article or as a separate section in the main article. As a compromise, I would not object to something like the sidebars in the Columbine High School massacre article which list the victims and where they were shot.--FreeKresge 16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Own article, since the names are not important at all for the event itself, but only for those who want to do further research about these poor souls (which will be a minority in the future probably). --Abe Lincoln 17:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. I don't think it matters if it's in its own article of included in the main Virginia Tech massacre article. The main point is to keep the information on the victims from expanding into a memorial. --Crunch 19:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then to what level of detail?[edit]

Names only? Names plus very basic information such as age, location/time of death, and status within the university? Longer capsule descriptions of a biographical nature? Please be explicit as to what should be in, and what should be out. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short, concise bio of a sentence or two will suffice. There is no need to delete anything, neither is there any need for the victim's life stories, unless they are particularly notable, such as the hero professor. A 2 line bio on Wiki will suffice and anyone wishing to do further study on a person should search for memorial pages and articles. Romancer 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for those who have achieved notability outside the massacre, such as a professor who passes WP:PROF, I would limit information just to what is relevant to the massacre. This could include location/time of death, how many times the person was shot, where the person was shot (e.g., head, chest, but do not make this too morbid), and any verifiable information about what the person did during the event (such as the actions of the hero professor). Last I heard, it was not yet known if the shooter specifically targeted the first victim. If the shooter did target her, any verifiable reasons why he would do so would also be relevant. I would not object to very basic information about the victims, such as or status in the university, but including much more information than that would risk turning this into a memorial.--FreeKresge 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reply a moment, a person being involved in a mass tragedy doesn't necessarily mean that that individual person is "notable" per se. It just means that their name will probably be indirectly mentioned in published discussions about the event. Notability refers to something non-trivial being written specifically about a subject, but it's not always the case that something non-trivial is written about victims of tragedies. So while the list of names on a mass murder as a whole is notable, it doesn't necessarily follow that every individual person on that list has received sufficient individual published discourse to be considered notable. Combine that with the fact that articles should leave out emotional or historically unimportant details on the subject and that means that you probably should not have an individual article on a victim unless there is something of substance to say about them that can't be simply included in a simple summary list of all the victims. Dugwiki 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The victims of this shooting will be the primary subject of individual news items by their home-town newspapers and TV stations, etc. Some of them will even receive segments and articles in the national or international press. It will be no troulbe to find 2+ reliable non-trivial stories directly about every single victim.
It is typical for us to include information that is not directly related to that person's fame. For instance, we may give their birth place, even if they moved away and did not grow up there. We may include their parents name or number of children or what some of their hobbies were. There is nothing wrong with giving a well rounded description of the person. We don't have to put our blinders on. Johntex\talk 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been arguing for inclusion, I think this would be excessive and the kind of thing that WP:MEMORIAL is about. Yes, each of these people will likely receive local and probably national attention, individually. However, because their notability comes as a result of their deaths in a tragedy, we should limit the facts to those relevant to the tragedy. Name, age, faculty/student, maybe subject of study, where they died. Once you start talking about favorite hobbies, I think you cross the line into memorial territory.Chunky Rice 21:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost exactly what Chunky said: Name, age, faculty/student, major, where they died, and anything relevant to why they died (e.g. they were the RA and had responded to a distrubance) anything else is probably not notable and falls under WP:MEMORIAL. --Matthew 21:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's some cognitive dissonance to these arguments. I get the feeling that some people believe that while most of the individuals are non-notable, putting together a list of all these non-notable people means the list will become notable. Sort of a "synergy" argument of sorts. If these victims are not notable enough for an article on the person, then collectively putting their names on one page does not create notability. There's a website with all the names of the ~50,000 deceased persons listed on the Vietnam memorial[1]. Under the proponent's argument, there should be an article called "List of American Vietnam War casualties." It would make just as much sense. Another way to look at this is: If Cho, instead of a pistol had acquired and set off a nuke, should there be a list of the thousands murdered? (You could make the same argument to support a "List of Hiroshima victims). I wouldn't think so, but no one is arguing that there should be a cut-off simply because the numbers are 33 and not 10,000. 67.149.103.119 03:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEMORIAL states that this or any other memorial, regardless of how "interested" people might be in seeing it, is not necessarily encyclopedic. Notability must be established, and not just for these people, but for this particular article. If not, this information can go in other articles pertaining to the event. Cheeser1 04:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has clearly been established. Dionyseus 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New organization[edit]

I organized the information by room and explained the general fates of the classrooms. WhisperToMe 22:51, 22 April 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.
More