Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/List of General Slocum victims
This list was originally deleted per vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of General Slocum victims, and moved to Wikisource:List of General Slocum victims. Now, a similar list which was also moved to Wikisource (per requests here) was VFD'd on wikisource, with people saying that it belongs here. (Wikisource:Wikisource:Proposed deletions#March 2005). --brian0918™ 17:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Reasons this list belongs on Wikipedia:
- Columbine High School massacre#Victims exists on Wikipedia
- Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks exists on Wikipedia
- Survivors of the September 11, 2001 attacks exists on Wikipedia
- Persons missing after the September 11, 2001 attacks exists on Wikipedia
- http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDNY exists in the Wikipedia space
- http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributes_to_companies exists in the Wikipedia space
- Canal Hotel Bombing#List of victims exists on Wikipedia
- Maxim restaurant suicide bombing#List of the 21 victims exists on Wikipedia
Either all of these should be kept, and this list should be undeleted, or all of these should be deleted. If these are all kept, then so should any future lists of disaster victims. --brian0918™ 18:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Properly deleted in process. Sorry Wikisource didn't want it either, but that doesn't give Wikipedia any obligation to take it. Citation of other articles is irrelevant, because VfU is for correction of improperly deleted articles, not for reconsideration of articles voted for deletion. Since Wikipedia does not have any review procedure for accepting articles, the fact that an article is in Wikipedia and has not been deleted does not imply that there's been any consensus judgement that the article is encyclopedic. Had I been voting in the VfD, I would have noted established policy excludes memorials. I would have judged that the lists Canal Hotel Bombing and Maxim restaurant suicide bombing were acceptable because they were short lists in the context of an article, which the General Slocum list is not. And I would have judged that the 9/11 and Columbine victims list warranted an exception because they are associated with extremely notable events that are thought to have an especially tragic character. The General Slocum disaster did not occur within living memory and there are probably no living relatives of the victims. But in any case all this was a topic for VfD, not VfU. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Brilliant logic there. So, you'll keep a list if it's short (and by the fact that it's short, did not affect as many people), and you'll keep a list if it's about something you remember seeing on TV in your lifetime. Way to remain neutral. So 1,000 people dying in a disaster has less impact on society than a handful of people dying in a suicide bombing? --brian0918™ 18:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Also, you claim that a short list is alright if it's in the appropriate article. Well, where's the cutoff? It's alright to keep a list of 10 people who died in a bombing because the 10 can be listed in the article, but when a disaster which is ORDERS larger occurs, its list will obviously be much longer (and the disaster will obviously impact the world more greatly, thus being more noteworthy). This list, however, would need its own article because it is too long to include in the original article on the disaster. But, according to your argument, a list such as this shouldn't have its own article, even if it's linked in the original article and is in context. So, where's the cutoff? Is it alright for 15 people to be listed, in that article, but not for 150, which would need its own article, and so should not exist? Is 40 alright, but not 50? --brian0918™ 18:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)