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 redirect to 2008 Mumbai attacks. Delete, merge and keep are about evenly divided. I must assign less weight to the "keep" opinions because they do not address the policy-based reasons for deletion, namely, that we are not a memorial and topics must meet notability requirements. On the other hand, two "delete" opinins are similarly poorly reasoned. On balance, though, we do have a (policy-based) consensus to not keep the article, but not quite to delete it. The compromise is a redirect back to the main article, so that editors can figure out among themselves what, if anything, to merge back.  Sandstein  09:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks (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)

In the wake of this discussion regarding a split article for the November 2015 Paris attacks, I thought I'd reintroduce this. WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:N is in violation with this article and probably aside from the government employees, none of the victims seem notable enough to warrant an article of their own, even a multiple-person article such as this. Parsley Man (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how many of those Gov't employees only have articles because they were a victim of this attack? All those articles are now questionable. I don't see 343 separate articles for every fire-fighter that died in the WTC. - theWOLFchild 21:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I don't question notability of all those officers as they have been posthumously been given various military decorations by Government. Also, a few of them passed GNG even before their death but simple didn't have their article because we lack editors working in this field. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so according to that logic, as long as we have editors willing to do so, WP can just fill up with articles about people who have been mentioned in the media once or twice? Or have been part of a notable event? Would you advocate the creation of 343 separate articles for every fire-fighter that died in 9/11? I'm sure we could find each of their names in a source somewhere. - theWOLFchild 13:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I didn't say once or twice, I said GNG. Anyways, that's a debate to have when you raise individual AfDs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said "probably", though. I didn't say such articles were warranted, and I wouldn't support them if they were created anyway. Parsley Man (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions closed as "no consensus" (like the previous AFD for this article) can properly be re-opened. Rest assured that your feel doesn't play a role in this. LjL (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"YOUR FEEL" what the... Bod (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Nom is working to keep that article, and that User talk:LjL argues that it should set a precedent for all terrorism articles, yes, this does appear to violate WP:POINT. Otherrs are free to disagree, but please WP:AGF. Do we have WP:NOSNARK?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those who tell others to follow WP:AGF are often most at fault of not following it. ansh666 00:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are alleging that others are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (that's what that page says, you know) when they legitimately nominate articles for deletion with some relatively widespread support for it, yet you invoke WP:AGF at the same time? Your behavior is puzzling. LjL (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AFD closed less than 2 months ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It closed as no consensus, though, so it's not inappropriate to nominate it again. ansh666 01:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just very quick, WP:POINTy, and likely to end as no consensus for the 3rd time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea how you assess "consensus"... ansh666 02:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NLIST, such list of random non-notable names should not be included. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not mix views related to other articles over here. Gauge this article on its own merits. The "enough" that's here in the article is already there in the main article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous comment as in in the previous Afd? That was "Keep but improve - the wall of text of names needs to be broken down. Equivalent to other articles like List of people killed during Euromaidan." I fail to see any rationale for keeping the article in this comment of yours. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT: "do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • respondIn this case the WP:POINTyness comes of a sort of WP:GAME wherein editors try to win by making others weary of a topic, leaving what are now 3 lengthy discussions on almost the same question to a passionate few. Repeating an AFD after less than 2 months can be a form of WP:GAME. After all, when WP feels too much like a battleground, some people may double down, but others will back away, leave a topic, or just leave.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly doubting your level of reading comprehension now... ansh666 14:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, what I'm getting weary from is your continuous, very long comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks and elsewhere, which dominate the page(s) to the point of making it hard to just read through other people's stances on keeping or deleting. Just look at the page, and tell me if it's not that way. You may want to take your own advice on WP:BATTLEGROUND and being overly passionate. (Also, you can keep saying that repeating the AFD after 2 months is WP:GAME, but we can keep saying you are totally incorrect because the AFD ended as "no consensus", so you may as well stop calling that "gaming" before it's taken as a personal accusation.) LjL (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2015 (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