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. Although there was a small numerical majority in favour of deletion, many of these !votes cited surmountable problems (e.g. overly broad criteria for inclusion, problems with the article title) and deletion is not cleanup. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of unlawfully killed transgender people[edit]

List of unlawfully killed transgender 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)

This article does not provide any reasons of its notability to be a list. Sure there are many references which link to the individual murders, but no references that support the fact that this article is a list which should be notable.
As it stands, this article fails what Wikipedia is not:WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. There is no reason why this article should exist and "List of unlawfully killed football players" shouldn't.
Furthermore, the article does not cite if any of the people murdered were victims because of their transgender, which makes it seem that this article is a compendium of people "A" that have been done "B".
This also fails by WP:YELLOWPAGES (another what Wikipedia is not), #6 "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". Wikipedia is not a directory for these kind of topics. Cheers. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I can't find any assertion in the article of why this topic is notable, or why a list is anything other than indiscriminate. I feel like this is nibbling at the edges of an actual topic, such people who were killed because they were trans, which may be a possible redirect should someone be willing to put in the work. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, these same arguments were addressed in the previous nomination for deletion which resulted in a keep. There are many reliable sources about murders of trans people as a concept in both the news (for example NYT, Vice, Washington Post, Newsweek, The Independent) and in scholarly articles (for example these articles). This shows that this article passes GNG. Note reliable news sources often compile similar lists to discuss this topic (two examples.) The intro doesn't use sources well to explain the relevance of this topic, but WP policy state "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Similarly, whether the list's scope should be murders definitely linked to transphobia or about the broader topic of transgender murders, that is a discussion that should be hashed out in the course of editing and isn't a reason for deletion. Rab V (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, violence against trans people because they are trans is heavily covered in media and academic sources, but that's not this article. That murders are covered in the news isn't indicative of GNG. That violence against particular groups is covered in the news doesn't mean it meets GNG. There is not assertion of notability in the article. It's indiscriminate, which is to say that you could make this list with literally any group of people, endlessly, with no apparent overarching point. The two features of the article, that these people are trans, and that they died unlawfully, is not connected in anyway. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this should be a more pruned list to only include people killed because they are trans, that would only require editing down the list and so shouldn't be a cause for deletion. The academic and news sources I listed above about trans murders also discuss trans murders as something that is caused by many overlapping factors not just transphobia, showing that the topic as is is covered in many RS. The articles discuss many reasons why being trans correlates with violence. In particular, GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" and that certainly seems to be the case here. The reason this wouldn't lead to indiscriminate lists of people is, for example, a list of murdered football players may have articles about individual deaths but editors may not be able to find enough RS about the overall topic of murdered football players. The idea that the overall topic must be covered by RS is laid out in WP:LISTN. Please note that all the sources I provided were not about individual instances but the overall topic. Rab V (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone has a reliable source they are allowed to create stat book on Wikipedia? Notability is a thing. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the fix in this case would be to provide more context about these murders where supported by RS. The lack of an intro here is an issue but fixable since there are enough RS on the general topic of trans murders. And the entry on Amanda Milan is a good example of where this article does well, giving plenty of context about her murder and it's political aftermath. Rab V (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. There is no point in having a list about non-notable incidents that are mostly written in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above "keep" !vote and the previous AfD. Individual entries may be debatable, but the concept of the list is legitimate. Media and academic coverage more than adequately establishes the topic as a subject of study; collecting examples is the opposite of indiscriminate. There's no cross-categorization when the available RS already establish the category. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Legitimate list subject. reliable sources. BabbaQ (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the list as it stands is trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If there are enough blue links to make something that's a more normal WP:SAL that's fine, but Wikipedia is not for martyrology or hagiography. All murders are tragic, but not all are notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons given by others above and also because it's too vaguely defined: e.g., does someone need to have publicly self-identified as transgender to be included or does it include people who are speculatively considered transgender by some sources? List pages like this tend to become a grab-bag of poorly sourced and dubious claims. The strange title is a bit of a red flag : if an article has such an awkward title ("unlawfully killed"? You mean murdered? Or are we including something else here?) it's just another indication that the list is poorly defined and likely to get out of hand. GBRV (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. List criteria should be established on the list page - e.g. a list of notable murders of transgender people (where notable = wiki article, and transgender is reliably sourced) should pass WP:LISTN. Murder and/or other violence towards transgender people is a topic that is discussed as a group.Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and no degree of cleanup, as if that were the issue, would change that; this is simply a list of synthed incidents that otherwise were not independently notable. Perhaps a new article detailing violence on transgender people could/should exist but this list does not convey the significance of such a topic in an encyclopedic way.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aside from the euphemistic title ("unlawfully killed" should just be "murdered"), this article does not fulfill WP:LISTPEOPLE, which specifies A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement... Aside from a smattering of the very well known cases from the 2000s, the vast majority of people/cases on this list are clearly not notable. If following guidelines and removing them, there'd be little left. If the article is kept, it will have to be stubbed according to guidelines. Otherwise, it's just WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as has been mentioned above. Agricola44 (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small note, LISPEOPLE goes on to say "There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement: If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E." I think that would cover a sufficient number of entries in this list since many of them are notable in RS for one event, their deaths. Rab V (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being murdered is not sufficient grounds for inclusion in a list: in the internet era, it's easy to find a source or even several for the fact that someone was murdered, but that's not notability. Almost the entire list from 2010 on is non-notable (no Wikipedia article). LISTPEOPLE mentions "common exceptions to the typical notability requirement", but in this list the 'exceptions' are the norm (and are very likely to remain that way). The list looks like Wikipedia:Activism. EddieHugh (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most murders are not covered in multiple national or international RS, but quite a few of these entries are. You may not feel like number of quality RS implies notability but that is how notability is defined by GNG. Rab V (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of, but not entirely: "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage" (WP:NOT). EddieHugh (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The list first violates Wikipedia fundamental pillar of Neutrality both in title and content. How does Wikipedia determine who is killed unlawfully and who is killed lawfully? It also violates WP:SOAPBOX and these are two clear reasons for deletion. Consider first entry in 2017. If and independent reporter asks Saudi Police how would they say they killed her unlawfully? How can the reporter himself decided it is unlawful or lawful killing while he is neither judge nor court? Which court issued verdict they are killed unjustly and the jurisdiction of the court. Consider the 3rd entry in 2017 again. Who is definitely sure (with multiple RS, of course) that the woman was killed because of her gender? Who determined it is unlawful? Should we make list of everybody found dead somewhere and label it killed unlawfully?. This list is one of the most serious blatant violation of Wikipedia policy I have seen in the recent and is eroding its neutrality. I analyzed more than 10 entries and weigh them with the sources and I only understand that this list is soapboxing and propaganda by Transgender activist for emotional and cause benefit and to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as clearly said above. And this against fundamental tenets of Wikipedia plainly --Ammarpad (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and consider adding the names of those for whom a Wikipedia article exists into a new Category, if a goal is to create a page where there is a list of names/articles all sharing this characteristic. This has been done for, eg, Category:American victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes. Main reason for deletion is straight from policy (WP:NOT): "Wikipedia articles are not ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons". EddieHugh (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The article is very well referenced and looks encylopedic to me. It provides an overview of a subset of human rights abuse.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject of trans people being murdered for being trans is a notable one. This article, much like many other articles hastily put up for deletion is in need of cleanup and overview.★Trekker (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to something along the lines of transgender people who were murdered because they were transgender. A list of people who were transgender and murdered is undoubtedly indiscriminate. Conversely, I feel that a list of transgender people whose murders were motivated by their being transgender would be fairly uncontroversial. Cjhard (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  Not a notable list, synth, not memorial.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as noted above, we are not here to right great wrongs. Too much synthesis of non-notable events. Lepricavark (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An indiscriminate linking of incidents and events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2017 (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.