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.
This is a sub-article related to Columbine High School massacre because after some time, that article was seen as being too large, so several satellite articles were created to contain all the extra information, this being one of them, if anything merge this onto that one. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is nothing more than a memorial. While I feel sorry for their families, WP is not a memorial for them. TJ Spyke 01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and Merge - not a memorial --Mjrmtg 01:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, or Merge Although Wikipedia is not a memorial, the victims are notable as victims of one of the deadliest school shootings. Otherwise, merge into the main article. --theblueflamingoSquawk 02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Which part of WP:BIO do you think they pass? DXRAW 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The shooting is notable, the individual victims are not. I'm not sure there is anything to merge, the article is just a list of the victims and that already exists in the article on the massacre. TJ Spyke 02:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge back into the main article; it's not really enough content to have its own separate page, and would work better in context in the main article. Krimpet (talk/review) 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly encourage the closing admin to read this discussion at WT:NOT because it relates directly to our subject. Per my opinion there, I recommend a keep, and would be almost as satisfied with a merge - as long as the content is kept in some form. YechielMan 03:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. The Columbine page is already 69kb though. I think this might have split off for that particular purpose. Shrumster 05:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very Strong Delete The persons are notable, but the article Columbine_High_School_massacre already contains a more detailed list of the victims, hence a new page is not needed. Mayank Abhishek 05:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or merge. Like it or not, you're gonna need to have the list somewhere, just like all the other articles on tragic events. --From Andoria with Love 06:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment True, But that place does not have to be wikipedia.
Keep or Merge and Re-edit completely (Don't delete)Well, I do understand how Wikipedia is NOT a memorial for families of victims, and how it does not advocate emotionally-related articles, this particular article gives a somewhat valid first-hand view of the victims and links to all of their sites and real memorials. This page just needs to be re-edited, and it will be a viable, non-objective page. I mean, deleting it will just remove all of the sources for the memorials. Given recent events, this page will probably be looked at alot more closely. Re-edit, then merge or keep (don't just delete).Kookface 06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge. The list by itself holds little encyclopedic value. No additional information on each of the individual victims can be added to it that requires keeping it separatly, as their only source of notability comes from the events themselves. Echoing the sentiments of grief that have already been expressed above, keeping this list simply is erecting a shrine to those who perished - a most commendable goal, but definitely not an encyclopedic one. - Phaedriel 07:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC
Merge - In entirety without abridging content! 76.109.163.61 09:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge, information should be preserved in the main article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and/or Merge - what Krimpet said ...--Cometstyles 11:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This remains me of the Causalties of the Beslan school hostage crisis deletion debate. My vote there was: "While I feel for the vitctims and their relatives, this is not encyclopedic. If this is included, we should create similar lists for Casualties of the Titanic, Causualties of the september 11 2001 attacks, Causalties of the second world war. This would get out of hand. Wikipedia is not a memorial." The same is true here. Dr bab 12:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I think the reductio ad absurdum argument is flawed. It's partly a question of numbers. I think we can agree that for an incident involving three people, such as the recent hiking accident on Mount Hood, the names should be listed. It's equally clear that for an incident involving 3,000 deaths, such as Sept. 11, a list would become unwieldy. So where's the middle ground? I think that's what we're discussing. YechielMan 18:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and merge a basic victim list into the article. We do not usually include victim lists for bombings and plane crashes, but unlike those events in a shooting spree the events transpire over a time period and the victims may have interacted to affect the sequence of events, so they may have a part in the narrative, like characters in a play. Edison 14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as above. Deleting this article doesn't somehow obliterate the memorial websites for all of these victims; it just means that Wikipedia isn't a link repository for them. As it shouldn't be. RGTraynor 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Dr bab said it best. Keeping this article sets a bad precedent. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The thing may be sad for some people, I suppose, but still, listing victims of mass deaths is weird, somewhat creepy, and unnecessary. If any of the individual victims got both very significant media attention and asserted notability beyond getting shot, why not make them the subject of their own article? Voretus 15:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete; the same information is already in the main article. Tizio 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Being one of the victims of a tragedy, regardless of the notoriety of said tragedy, does not confer notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a memorial, and having a page listing otherwise non-notable victims is unencyclopedic. Arkyan • (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge & Redirect This information is already available in the Columbine High School massacre article. There are people who might search for a list like this, however, so it should redirect to the proper section of the existing Columbine article. J0lt C0la 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Please think before opining "merge". The parent article is already huge and it doesn't need an extra infusion of content. The whole idea behind Wikipedia not being a memorial is that it isn't somewhere for you to post your dear departed loved one's obituary. But these people were covered in national news - this is not a vanity article about some guy's dear departed mother. --BigDT 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this line of reasoning.
Merge a simple list of victims and their ages is not going make the article that much longer. Ckessler 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete - a list of the names of the dead is not notable and not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists nor a memorial. If someone isn't important enough to get mentioned in the article or have their own article, then there's no reason to include them in a list, and there's no reason for a list if they're already mentioned inline. It just isn't important. Moreover, its not like the hiroshima bombing or 9/11 or similar have lists of dead people on them, and they were far more notable events. Thus, it is completely inappropriate. Titanium Dragon 19:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep, because of the notoriety and impact of this historic and infamous event, almost assuredly people reading Wikipedia will want to read this information. We must not fall victim to the deletionist agenda. --172.166.196.253 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge as per Phaedriel, who has it pretty well bang-on. The information is available in the main article, so no deletionism is going on here. Tony Fox(arf!) 20:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, was created to prevent the Columbine article from getting too long. No valid reason to delete and no reason to merge back in. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: For the record, you also have this and this, among many others. Ya'll gonna get rid of those, too? --From Andoria with Love 22:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the general idea. Its pretty evident from their distribution that they are random and meaningless, and are very biased towards people in the US. Its not like the Haditha killings has a victims page. Indeed, there isn't a list of the names of the people killed in that, because it isn't encyclopedic! Frankly, these lists of victims ARE memorial pages, and thus inappropriate, because they weren't meaningful and they aren't remembered. Titanium Dragon 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The natural solution to that would be to improve our coverage of Haditha by adding a list of victims there, not to delete this article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Normally I would suggest a list of victims (which I believe to be a vital part of an encylopaedic article like this) be merged into the main article for the incident. However, the whole reason this article is here is that the main article is too long. This page does not read like a memorial, includes all those involved including the murderers (which obviously would not be the case on a memorial), ad deliberately avoids language which might construe the page as a memorial to the massacre. It is simply a page presenting information pertinant to another page which is now simply too long.--Jackyd101 23:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. If you object to a specific aspect of this list, then improve it through editing. The list of victims in this case is a valuable addition to the parent article; indeed, we wouldn't HAVE a parent article if these people hadn't been killed in the first place. Having an article on the killings without the people who were killed would be like having an article on an election without the names of the candidates, or an article on the Olympics without the medal winners. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Great, so merge the names into the main article. Oh, wait. They already are in there, each and every one. How many you have actually read the Columbine article? The deaths of every victim are described in narrative detail, and there is a table as well. This article up for AfD is completely redundant. RGTraynor 03:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think they should be in the main article, for reasons of length. If they're a standalone with a blurb in the main article, people can see them if they want, and not see them if they don't. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now that I look at it again, I see that it's not anything like you'd described. I assumed that it must've been changed since the last time I read it, but I guess not. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: WP isn't a memorial. Death sucks, but just because you died doesn't make you notable. Just because you die during a notable event doesn't make you notable, either -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. For the following reasons:
The names of the dead and injured in the Columbine High School massacre are historically pertinent as part of the description of that significant historical event.
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 victims en groupe are notable for having been the victims of the one of the biggest school shootings in U.S. history. That they were coincidentally fondly remembered by their friends/family does not detract from that. I do not argue that their level of notability warrants each and every one of them getting a separate article, but yes, they are "notable" enough as a group for their names to be known.
The current AfD discussion seems to be part of an ideological campaign against any such lists of victims of heinous crimes, apparently begun with the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre page and accompanying AfD discussion, by people who seem unable to distinguish between a memorialization and pertinent detail about a historically important event. I disagree with this ideological campaign and the faulty reasoning behind it.
Many proponents of deletion also seem to be confused about different levels of "notability." They apparently believe that if a given person/place/thing/event/idea isn't notable enough to warrant a page all on its own, then it isn't deserving of mention at all, even if it's a pertinent detail in describing another person/place/thing/event/idea. By this faulty reasoning, no person/place/thing/event/idea on Wikipedia would be deserving of an article, since every article is made up of numerous "nonnotable" details that only become notable when joined with others to create a context. But it is context that makes something/someone notable or not, and these people, the victims of Harris and Klebold, are part of the context of what makes the Columbine shootings notable. As Hit bull, win steak wrote, "we wouldn't HAVE a parent article if these people hadn't been killed in the first place." I'm sure we would all be much happier if the main article didn't even exist, but the reason it does is because these people and their deaths and injuries were notable not only to their families and friends and the community of Littleton, Colorado, but also to the nation and to the world. If they weren't, then perhaps you should consider a speedy delete on the main article instead.
I would vote Merge were in not for the fact that the main Columbine High School massacre article is already (at this writing) 70 kb in length, and when opened to edit displays the message "It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles." Per WP:SIZE, an article over 60 kb "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" and one over 100 kb "Almost certainly should be divided up." Which is of course why this article was split out of the main one to being with. I'm not sure how much merging this article into the main article would affect the size, but it's already over the recommended limit for "probably should." Therefore I vote for Keep rather than Merge. --Yksin 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment (per a similar comment I made in the AfD/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre discussion). Per WP:NOTE, "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" (emphases added). So this continual referencing of WP:NOTE is inappropriate as an argument for the deletion of this article because the individuals named here are not individually notable -- because the topic of this article is all the victims of the Columbine 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 06:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep This article was created on June 10, 2005 and is just a list of those who were killed, it's a list not a memorial, if on the other hand people were writing about how much they going to miss them or how they knew them and enjoyed the same music etc. I would agree, this on the other hand was a major news story and part of US History, further more I see the recent nom of this article for deletion as Violation of WP:POINT brought about by the nom of the List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 06:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep, unforunately a merge would make the main article too bulky - best to keep it as a separate articlespace. Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 07:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per comments above. Sr13(T|C) 08:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very Strong Keep Just as important as the killers or the event itself. (Djungelurban 12:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Strong delete. It's an unnecessary page, the content of which is certainly covered elsewhere. └Jared┘┌talk┐ 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep Too bulky to be merged into the main page, and their names is important information and very relavent to the massacre Epson291 14:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KEEP High School Students will need this information in the future --Corcoranp 13:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the list did no harm in the past. --Witchinghour 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete We are not an obituary. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, valid subarticle, containing notable content, split for reasons of size. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as a list of encylopedic information. It would be a detriment to the quality of the main article to have it jammed in there, but would also be an oversight of this encylopedia to not have this information. This is not a memorial, however a list, one of many on wikipedia used to cover such information. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or Merge I don't care which, but I like having information. Ihitterdal 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete suggestion for this article. There is room for a list of victims in the original article. But we do need to remember that WP is NOT a memorial. There is no additional information in this list that would make it appear to be anything other than a memorial. Aquatics 22:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, I'm failing to see how a list is the same thing as a memorial. It's not like this is friends or family writing a memorial page to the victims. I don't think memorial applies in this case. JohnnyBGoodtcVIVA! 23:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, Nope, it used to be part of the massacre article, and then people thought the article was too long, so they divided some sections out into sub-articles, this being one of them. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 23:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep this please there is too much information to put in main article yuckfoo 02:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This not a violation of WP:MEMORIAL because it's not a memorial, it's a listing a victims, people seem to be confused as what constitutes a memorial, if a perpetrator of a crime becomes so news worthy as to become encyclopedic rather it be Adolph Hitler, Osama bin Laden, or Charles Manson, common sense will tell you that these people regardless of how horrible they are that they are notable in history, on the other hand people seem to have a harder time understanding of the notability of a crime victim, JonBenét Ramsey wasn't notable before her death and neither was Elizabeth Smart before her kidnapping, after the fact their cases were covered worldwide as to reach notability and so were true with the Columbine victims, reporting them as such isn't the same a reporting another young boy or girl who is kidnapped or murdered, the listing of a famous victim is no more of a memorial as the listing of a famous killer. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 04:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what say you about the wall of names at say, the USS Arizona Memorial? That is a memorial with the names of those that died in the battle. This is the same idea, abeit in digital form. --293.xx.xxx.xx 04:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a paradox, the more numerous victims in an event the less known they are individually, the listing of six million Jews for example can not be done, and conversely the listing of the seven people of the space shuttle challenger can. As far as the USS Arizona Memorial, if at the time wikipedia had existed and people who were editors made their own memorial to the people who died on the USS Arizona, this would had been a violation, if editors at the time instead had just reported in an article about a memorial of the USS Arizona then it would not be a violation. Thus reporting on the memorial and making a memorial is two different things, listing the names of the victims and making a memorial to them are also two different things.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 05:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak DeleteWeak Keep While it is the norm, there could easily be exceptions to the rule. Columbine was and still is a historic event, and perhaps the rule/norm could be bent to allow this list to be refined and kept. Jmlk17 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment To me, the problem isn't just that it violates the rules, but also that it's completely redundant. Literally everything that's in this article is already available in Columbine High School massacre, and in greater detail. Jeff Silvers 04:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep list of victims != memorial... individual pages for victims == memorial... dont confuse the two. and delete the images off the page already (thats not acceptable fair use). ALKIVAR™☢ 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment One has to assume this is meant as a memorial since all this information is already available in Columbine High School massacre and therefore has no other purpose to exist as a stand-alone article. Jeff Silvers 04:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment No, not true - it does have a purpose, it helps keep the main Columbine High School massacre article down to a more manageable size. 86.152.203.212 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'd be inclined to agree were it not for the fact that, as I've previously mentioned, all this information is already available at Columbine High School massacre. So no, it isn't helping anything. It's entirely redundant. Jeff Silvers 19:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Merge the names into the main article, but delete this article. It's a memorial, and isn't appropriate for wikipedia. Malamockq 05:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per precedent. I started an article on the Bath School disaster victims. Unanimous consent was to remove and this was done (and Bath was a far worse tragedy).[1] All you need here is name, age, occupation/student status and you have enough for a record. If there's more than that, the person should have their own article or one of the many memorial sites can more than provide whatever detail a searcher may be looking to obtain. Jtmichcock 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep - and so there should also be a similar article for the Virginia Tech massacre and all other such incidents. Why would this not be considered notable enough to keep? --DevelopedMadness 19:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggest Merge back to the main Columbine High School massacre. If all the information is already there, the task is easily achieved. There is no point in duplication. Peterkingiron 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep. This is clearly an improper use of the claim of WP:MEMORIAL, which states: Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.. This is not a matter of the sobbing friends and family of a departed loved one, posting the kid's myspace page on the Wikipedia. The tone of the Memorials guideline is to avoid making special pages for otherwise non-notable individuals just because they died prematurely or otherwise. Groups of people involved in a massacre are different. The Columbine massacre, like the Virginia Tech massacre and 9-11, was a National Tragedy, as students, families, and the general national population was effected in some way. While it is true that the dear students themselves, rest in peace, were not particularly notable before the event, the list of them becomes notable because of the global interest in the event. That said - I would strongly argue against creating special pages for each of the students themselves, unless there were other notability factors, like perhaps documented heroic acts performed before death, that sort of thing, and then it would have to be very well documented, not urban legend material. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.