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. Significant discussion, with particular focus on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:LISTN. There does not seem to be significant disagreement that the subject of list itself is notable. There also seems to be consensus that not all lists of deaths are non-notable memorials. TigerShark (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia simply isn't a memorial. I can't think of any other case where we've had an article dedicated to listing every individual in a mass casualty event - terrorism or otherwise and i don't see any reason why we should. Notable victims, yes, but other than that, absolutely not. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete per WP:NOTDATABASEWP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. An argument could be made that it meets WP:LISTN, as the victims of the September 11 attacks have been discussed as a group by reliable sources, but WP:N makes it clear that we can only have an article if it is both notable and not excluded under WP:NOT, which makes me believe that argument is insufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic easily meets WP:LISTN, which says that a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Unlike most mass casualty events, there are an extraordinary number of works dedicated to the victims as a group, both at the time of the event and in the two decades that followed. These include books and book parts ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), news articles ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and even a study about their specific location within WTC at the time of their death. Others above point to the lack of other sorts of things lists relating to other mass casualty events, but this is a bad WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that fails to consider the extent to which coverage actually exists for this specific topic. WP:NOTDATABASE prohibits four types of content: (1) Summary-only descriptions of work, (2) Lyrics databases, (3) Excessive listings of unexplained statistics, and (4) Exhaustive logs of software updates. Simply put, this is not any of those—this list is not a summary of a work, a database of lyrics, any sort of mathematical/statistical database, nor a log of software updates. The appeal to WP:NOTMEMORIAL is similarly confused and erroneous, as it notes that subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements and this article clearly meets WP:LISTN. 9/11 was a tremendously impactful event, generated a TON of coverage, and this particular entry is notable in its own right and it is so large that merging it into any article would result in that article being WP:TOOBIG. And, if one believes that the selection criteria for this are too wide and that only notable victims should be included in the table, then this is an issue that can be dealt with through ordinary editing. And, keeping in mind that WP:DEL-CONTENT demands that when editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, this is not an argument that supports deletion outright. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, that doesn't address the WP:DEL-CONTENT reason for keeping, which is that ordinary editing processes are likely capable of improving the page to resolve policy issues with the content for an article with a notable subject. If there's consensus that the current selection criteria (all victims recognized by the WTC Museum) are too broad and could be replaced with a more narrow selection criteria (all notable victims), then the solution to get around it being overly broad would be to do that. But outright deletion is a plain overstep without so much as attempting to establish a better selection criteria the list through ordinary discussion and editing. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to WP:NOTDATABASE, you are correct; I got it and WP:NOTDIRECTORY confused. With that said WP:NOTDIRECTORY also doesn't make a clear argument for deletion; the argument would be that their contextual information showing encyclopedic merit is the fact that they were killed in the September 11 attacks, but that merit isn't obvious and could be argued either way. I still lean delete, but am not overly convinced either way. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the line in the policy refers to WP:LISTCRITERIA (i.e. how to set appropriate selection criteria) as the controlling guidance with respect to how we distinguish simple listings from encyclopedic ones. To echo my comment above, nobody appears to have even brought this up on the list's talk page. When there is a notable underlying topic (such as there is in this case by virtue of WP:LISTN), Ordinary discussion and editing related to selecting an appropriate selection criteria should at least be attempted before nuking a page from orbit on the basis that the article creator made the list's scope too wide; the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first (such as by opening requests for comment) before deleting the article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely notable and of importance. People are too quick to delete. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article, and will be likely be discarded in the final analysis. Zaathras (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only if the inclusion criteria is limited to people who are the subject of a Wikipedia biography. A list of several thousand names of mostly non-notable people is not encyclopedic, and the external links section should direct readers to the best of such comprehensive lists off-Wikipedia. Otherwise delete. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the 3,000-ish incoming redirects. Nothing appears to have changed, re: WP:NOTMEMORIAL, from old deletion discussions of similar pages, this smacks of just tossing things at the wall hoping this time it will stick. That people died on 9/11 is notable, but that does not confer individual notability upon each victim where they should be memorialized in a list. Zaathras (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial or a directory or a place to create lists such as this. A page of just notable people would be a different thing but I am reminded of the thinking behind WP:BIO1E and whilst notability is required for all of the items in a list that doesn't mean that everyone needs to be shown. It seems to me that adding a well written note containing a link to the September 11 memorial on other pages could easily replace this page. I would also say that Wikipedia is not a place where it is appropriate to create additional workload by creating (well) over 100 redirects within a day without first raising it with the New Page Patrollers or the page creation talk page. These redirects will also make it just that little bit harder to create pages for other people of the same names and my preference would be for them to be removed as well. Gusfriend (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable
The policy goes further to say that editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles, but that is just allowing editor discretion, not mandating it. Further to this, editors in this discussion may be interested to know that Praxidicae didn't just list this AfD, but this is a 3rd strike after first deciding to confront me on my talk page, and report me at WP:ANI. The article should be kept or deleted based on policy and reason, but its AfD listing may have been motivated otherwise. — Guarapiranga☎ 05:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as others said above, per various sections of WP:NOT, and also as an unnecessary and undesirable fork of Casualties of 9/11. We need an article about the casualties, not a list; this is "listcruft". The identity of every victim isn't a significant part of 9/11: the victims were not specifically chosen or targeted, they were just people tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some are "notable" enough for their own article or "due for inclusion" (in wikispeak) in an existing article but not everyone. There is no encyclopedic value to listing all their 3,000 names, any more than it makes sense to list the names of everyone who died in a battle or war or natural disaster or terrorist attack or any mass casualty event. Also, it defines these non-notable people as victims. I mean the most important thing about these ~3,000 victims is not that they died on 9/11. I am sure each one of them did something more important in their lives. They should be remembered for their individual obituaries, and if they're not notable, there's no reason for Wikipedia to "take over" their internet footprint by listing them in a list article. Because let's face it, this will become a top search result for each one of these 3k names on the list. Levivich[block] 05:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be fine with selective merging of victim biographies to Casualties of the September 11 attacks, List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks, or other appropriate 9/11 sub-articles. Some victim biographies will be WP:DUE for inclusion in certain articles, and some notable for their own articles. But a list of all the people killed on 9/11 should not exist on Wikipedia. If we have enough victim biography stand-alone articles to justify it, I'd be fine with a "list of notable victims" or a template, etc., as a navigation aid. Levivich[block] 19:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Short of transcribing an actual phone book into an article, I don't think I could come up with a better example of an article that falls under both WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:COMMONSENSE. This list is complex (involving a lot of different but related parts) by virtue of its staggeringly immense size, and WP:LISTN specifically notes that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex...lists." Therefore the notability criteria of WP:LISTN does not apply, as there is no consensus that simply having sources would create notability for such an atypical list subject. Furthermore, there is no notability for the group outside of the scope of the already existing Casualties of the September 11 attacks. Wikipedia:Article size says that articles of about 100k are too long and should be split into smaller articles. This article is well over 800k in size, and cannot be split into smaller articles. There is no justification for that. There is no rationale under Wikipedia policies or guidelines for this article to exist, and editing cannot improve the page in a way that will rectify these deficiencies. - Aoidh (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL explicitly applies to subjects of encyclopedia articles, not to content within articles or lists. It's meant to preclude editors from creating entire pages dedicated to memorialise someone not notable. Evidently, the September 11 attacks, and their victims as a group, are well above wp:notability's bar. — Guarapiranga☎ 08:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nowhere under WP:NOTMEMORIAL that explicitly and exclusively says the policy does not apply to lists of people. Ajf773 (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nowhere in my reply that I said WP:NOTMEMORIALdoes not apply to lists of people, but rather that it explicitly applies to subjects of encyclopaedia articles (including lists, of course), not to content within articles or lists.— Guarapiranga☎ 09:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure you know what you are trying to say, because it looks like you've contradicted yourself. WP:NOTMEMORIAL can apply to both subjects of articles and content. Ajf773 (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodie, you must have so much time to burn. You've created re-directs for pretty much every single person on the list, with this list as the target: [13]. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Is that a problem? Why? — Guarapiranga☎ 09:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is deleted then all the redirects go as well. Ajf773 (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assumed this might be a list of notable victims of 9/11, but listing every single person who was tragically killed during the attacks is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIR, WP:MEMORIAL, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE with a side of WP:UNDUE regionalist bias towards the US and New York City specifically. Dronebogus (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: With respect, reliance on WP:UNDUE is misplaced because that is concerned on maintaining balance within the content of articles, not the topics covered by Wikipedia. There is no policy that says Wikipedia must have a balance of articles from different areas around the world and we most certainly do not. I'm not convinced by reliance on WP:INDISCRIMINATE either, it is a clearly defined list. It's generally best to try and explain how the criteria apply to the particular article rather than simply listing them. See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Local Variable (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list article title, but not the content. The current content is not true to label as it is only about the "fatal" "victims inscribed at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum". What about the victims who survived, but were seriously injured, suffered life-changing trauma, or now have long term career-limiting health effects; are they not victims, too? This article should be what the basic list article was intended to be, an index to provide links to the [Wikipedia] biography articles about the notable people who were victims of the September 11 attacks. The existing list is only about the fatal victims inscribed at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, so that article should explain where the list of fatal victims are inscribed and how an on-line or printable version can be found. Wikipedia is not a September 11 memorial, so we should not have that memorial list here. However, a suitable Wikipedia article should note that these memorial inscriptions do exist and where these inscriptions can be found. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your objection to the title, Cameron Dewe. Fortunately that's easily remedied by changing it. How about List of fatal victims of the September 11 attacks? — Guarapiranga☎ 21:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe changing it to "notable victims of 9/11", like Dronebogus alluded to, may be a good way to rescue some of the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list article title, but not the content - I agree with Cameron Dewe. On the one hand, this article should probably be trimmed to link only to notable people. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL (in the literal sense - the National September 11 Memorial & Museum is literally a memorial and we don't need to copy every name from the 9/11 Memorial), we shouldn't list all the non-notable people who died here. On the other hand, the title also implies that the list includes people who were injured during 9/11, including those who later fell ill after the fact. Right now this list only contains fatal victims, which is a bit misleading. However, had this article been named "List of people who died in the September 11 attacks", I might have voted definitively to delete.A couple of side notes here. I'm not seeing any undue bias toward NYC, as most victims naturally would've lived in the NYC area due to the nature of the attacks. I was also concerned over the fact that @Onetwothreeip had draftified this page, and then redirected it to Casualties of the September 11 attacks, without bringing it to AFD for wider discussion (thereby breaking several thousand redirects). However, as all the redirects have been deleted and this discussion now exists, I don't think that is a problem anymore. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list seems notable enough to remain on the site. It gives enough information and meets WP:LISTN and also 9/11 is a very important topic so I believe that it holds notability although other lists of casualties from similar events probably wouldn't. At worst we scale it down to only include notable victims or we redirect it to Casualties of the September 11 attacks but I think it's plausable to keep the article on the site. N1TH Music (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Casualties of the September 11 attacks is an overview article about victims in general.
List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks is a subset of this topic. Thus, if the "List of 9/11 victims" article is deleted, then the "List of emergency workers killed in 9/11" may have similar issues.
Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks, Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks, Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, - These only talk tangentially about victims insofar as they talk about the aftermath and effects of the attacks.
American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93, and United Airlines Flight 175 - These articles do talk about the victims of the respective flights. However, the victims are not the main focus of the article.
Of the articles mentioned above, only two of these pages actually talk about victims in depth. One of them is a subtopic article and the other is an overview article. Neither page really talks about the victims themselves, which is definitely a valid topic - at least, judging by the sources in @Mhawk10's comment and in the current list article. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I would propose this list be an index, perhaps something like a disambiguation page. A name-sorted bulleted list of wiki-links to pre-existing Wikipedia articles, perhaps with a brief description of their notability and a sentence or two explaining what the list is and it's inclusion criteria. Something really basic and minimal, to avoid the article being any larger than necessary. The problem with Casualties of the September 11 attacks, and many other similar articles, is that they are verbose descriptions, with names scattered throughout the article in no particular name order or inclusion criteria. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In most circumstances, such lists should be deleted. But the victims of 9/11, as a whole, have been extensively documented in RS so WP:LISTN is satisfied. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think they mean contextless in the sense that it's a list of names with no context as to who this person is outside of "employer information". It's context is in who they worked for, not who the person was. There's no context there for any of the people, it's just a list of names. - Aoidh (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even being as sparse as they are, those still have more context and information than what's contained in this list, and those entries aren't exacerbated by the virtue of being several thousand entries long. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are around 200 items on this list that give nothing but a name. It is a tragedy that these people died but readers learn nothing from these 200 names being listed here. It is essentially just a mirror of the 9/11 memorial - something Wikipedia is not. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are 9 sources cited in the article giving the list of fatal victims, not just the 9/11 Memorial. The 9/11 Memorial doesn't give the particulars of the fatal victims, btw; that I pulled from WFSA12 News. Some of the sources list the names differently from others; some with full middle name, some abbreviated; some with suffixes, some without. So, yeah, it's not a mirror. — Guarapiranga☎ 00:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the around 200 items (sic) (out of the 3,000!) on this list that give nothing but a name...
Many of those may have been by my inability to match the names across the sources;
In all cases there is info about where the victim was killed (at WTC, the flights or the Pentagon); if there's any missing, it's an error on my part; and
Even in the cases that no further details are to be found in the current given sources, nothing prevents editors from adding other RS to the article (or even new RS to be published, and represented here).
Similarly, there's nothing that says notability for "the topic" means you have to create a list several thousand entries long for it, when it's already covered in other article proportionate to coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's exactly what they mean: we don't have lists of dead people even if reliable sources cover the topic. Levivich[block] 02:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do they? Here is what WP:NOTMEMORIAL says (emphasis mine):
Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.)
Agree fully. I just glanced at one of the above and saw many blue-linked names and names with individual citations. This list has almost no blue-links and probably no coverage for any of these people individually. Dronebogus (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know this is very emotional, but a list of names really is just a memorial. It's time we let this one go. valereee (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Dr.Swag Lord. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can that be improved? Can the page somehow be 'minified'? What's taking so much space? I vaguely remember seeing longer lists on WP (not to mention articles with various images, which surely don't come cheap in size. I simplified ((list person)), but that didn't help. — Guarapiranga☎ 08:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are significant improvements that can be made in removing the excessive formatting throughout the list, and restricting the list to notable entries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Onetwothreeip. I think I would prefer this page if it were a list of names not in table form. E.g.
Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC: Andrew Anthony Abate (37), Vincent Paul Abate (40), Laurence Christopher Abel (37), ...
Perhaps the "Job" column could simply be cut. I'm not sure the current form with detail on each individual is the right format for the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mhawk10 removed some of the formatting, and reduced over 100kb. Now it's under 730kb. I see it's at the top of LongPages, but is that a lot? Why? — Guarapiranga☎ 01:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's the largest page (by size of WikiText) on Wikipedia. The page (after our edits) is now only 3K larger than the second-largest page by wikitext size. So it's quite large, but that also is something of a consequence of the number of entries in the list. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the work trimming down the size! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now, without ((list person)), it's down to 360kb, 255th on the list. — Guarapiranga☎ 02:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename as suggested above per WP:LISTN. The list by itself is highly notable. Moreover, the list is complete. The individual people or items in such lists are not required to be notable or have their own pages. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do believe it's a notable list, and as Guarapiranga pointed out, there are other similar lists that exist. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article title, not content - I'm conflicted on the different interpretations of WP:NOTMEMORIAL but I'm leaning towards it not being applicable to list articles like this when the subjects of the list, as a group, have notability (and they almost certainly does). That said, we generally only include notable names on lists as long as this. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 10:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with My very best wishes. It makes sense for a listing of those killed (which passes WP:NLIST) to be made into a WP:SPINOFF of the casualties page with its given size. There is contextual information showing encyclopedic merit in the very first sentence. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't generally name nonnotable people in almost any context unless it's somehow necessary or convenient for the narration of events -- much less make giant lists of them. (I suppose if it just listed notable deaths that might be a different story. But the fact is I think almost all list pages are stupid so I'm probably not a good judge on that score.) EEng 01:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mhawk10. In its terms, WP:NOTMEMORIAL says: Wikipedia is not [...] a memorial site ... Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.). The way I read this is that there is no prohibition per se on this type of article. Rather, it is that memorial articles generally fall outside of the notability criteria. That is why it says the subject[] of an article must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. To me, this calls for analysis of whether this list is itself notable: Notability of lists is based on the group. The past consensus decisions based on NOTMEMORIAL therefore ought not be followed. There is some analysis of notability above, but not a lot. Mhawk10 offers detailed analysis in favour of notability. I'm not convinced that an article which could be described as a 'memorial' (because it lists deceased individuals) is prohibited for any other reason other than want of notability. Wikipedia has lists of many things, lists of deceased people is really just another type of list. For the reasons given by Mhawk10, this list is notable. You can't get a more notable list of casualties than that from this event. Local Variable (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This article is both a directory and a memorial, both of which are against WP guidelines, as already pointed out. It's also massive, therefore unmergeable into any other article. I wouldn't object to a List of notable victims of the September 11 attacks, strictly limited to people who have their own biography article, but the current list does not belong to an encyclopedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no encyclopedic purpose, memorial and directory. This information exists on other websites and I see no reason to host it here. MB 16:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't all information on WP exist on other websites (and publications), for it otherwise constitutes WP:OR? — Guarapiranga☎ 23:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLUDGEON. You've more than expressed your viewpoint. Let others do the same. - Aoidh (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we here to discuss whether the article should be deleted (WP:AFD), whether it is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies, and which are valid arguments that should be given more weight than unsupported statements (WP:DISCUSSAFD)? Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one (WP:AFDEQ). — Guarapiranga☎ 01:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your response makes it sound like you did not read the actual text of WP:BLUDGEON. Specifically WP:SATISFY. - Aoidh (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did. It doesn't apply. I'm not asking anyone to satisfy me; nowhere did I say I was not convinced by anyone's arguments. In this instance, I simply questioned the validity of the argument that information exists on other websites and therfore there is no reason to host it here. That's what we are here to do. — Guarapiranga☎ 04:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness or encyclopedic purpose tends to be a highly subjective judgment. As said over at WP:WEDONTNEEDIT: A list of all the phone numbers in New York City would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. This project's notability criteria imply that knowledge about a subject that meets them is useful. If this list had significant coverage in reliable sources and is notable, then this seems to be beside the point. Local Variable (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Local Variable:If this list had significant coverage in reliable sources
Keep - Unless the notability standard for lists changes, this one is valid and notable. Plenty of sources and sustained coverage mentioned and listed already. WikiVirusC(talk) 02:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. WP:CSB concerns also. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2022 (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.