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.
Keep Given the international importance of this, the President and his wife, the Head of the Army, the Head of the National Bank, etc., etc., this is HARDLY non-notable people.
David V Houston (
talk)
21:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Victim Lists is an essay; it is neither guidance nor policy. I cannot agree with the suggestion at Victim Lists that every single person in a list needs to notable for the list to be notable. In this case the majority of victims are notable and that on its own would be enough to make the list notable.
Greenshed (
talk)
23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep This request for deletion for is a misinterpretation of the Wikipedia is not a memorial rule. An accident like this is of major political importance. Imagine what kind of constitutional chaos would ensue of this type of accident happened in the US, UK, France, Germany, or Russia.Kinemaτ
Keep. Outrageous nomination. It was a Presidential Fleet airplane full of highest-ranking officials, who were mega-notable. -
Darwinek (
talk)
22:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. Total misinterpretation of memorial notion (I'd argue that that it's essay isn't quite enough to call it a rule). I could support in principle the reduction of the list (e.g. removing flight crew and other individuals that would not fulfill notability criteria), but the fact remains that firstly a large number of very notable individuals died and the inclusion of others for the sake of completeness does not appear to make the article unwieldy, nor does it in anyway draw attention away from the more notable individuals. Secondly, simply because someone doesn't have a wikipedia article doesn't mean they are not notable and I think for now an open mind should be kept. This event may prompt editors to create articles for these individuals. I know WP shouldn't be a crystal ball, but the notability of a large number of people on the list justifies the list remaining as is.
Fenix down (
talk)
22:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I have to support the thoughts of everyone above. If it had been a commercial plane that just happened to be carrying some low ranking Assistant Secretary, than I would say delete. But this on had a president killed, along with nearly te rest of the government.
Buggie111 (
talk)
Keep or Merge I say either keep this list, or list all victims on the article about the crash itself. For example,
Maguindanao massacre has such a section. If this info is available to Wikipedia, we should use it.--
RM (
Be my friend)
23:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep, and include all names. I actually came to this article just now specifically to see the names of the crewmembers. That said, I would also support a merge back to the main article, as long as the information itself is maintained. --
Elonka03:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge/Unsplit into the main article.
WP:NOTMEMORIAL for all the non-notable dead people on this list (crew, bodyguards, the "other" list for the most part), and MERGE the notable people back into the main article.
70.29.208.247 (
talk)
05:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. Obviously notable, important information, and it's too long a list to be merged, which is why it was split out in the first place.
Rebecca (
talk)
05:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - I've always been in favour of Wikipedia holding statistical information like victims lists in any case, but in a situation like this where so many of the dead are notable a list like this is essential to a clear understanding of the subject.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
06:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)reply
I also wanted to point something out in response to the person above is asking why the flight crew are notable. They aren't and that is why they don't have articles (if they did and there was no clear claim to notability then I would vote delete on those articles). This list is not an attempt to confer notability on them, it is a notable list that happens to include them - the person who wrote that above is misinterpretating NOT:MEMORIAL.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
06:42, 14 April 2010 (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.