The result was no consensus. I can't seem to find a consensus on this. I discounted many of the keeps as obvious recentism keeps, but the delete side is worried about the list in the article, which can be removed fairly easily. Most of the information doesn't seem to meet WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which is a rationale for most of the people who wants to delete this article. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, was created for if the page is obviously a memorial, which this isn't. The list of victims I'll remove though as that seems to be the concern here. Discuss a merge in the talk page. Secret account 18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
With some trepidation I am nominating this article for deletion because Wikipedia is not a memorial. I appreciate the strong sentiment that the atrocities have caused and the grief of the families, friends and others affected, but we are writing an encyclopaedia. Such a list fails to meet our established criteria, and, understanding the strong feelings that this will generate, I am asking editors to leave emotion aside and concentrate on what is and is not encyclopaedic. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I can't seem to find a consensus on this. I discounted many of the keeps as obvious recentism keeps, but the delete side is worried about the list in the article, which can be removed fairly easily. Most of the information doesn't seem to meet WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which is a rationale for most of the people who wants to delete this article. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, was created for if the page is obviously a memorial, which this isn't. The list of victims I'll remove though as that seems to be the concern here. Discuss a merge in the talk page. Secret account 18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
With some trepidation I am nominating this article for deletion because Wikipedia is not a memorial. I appreciate the strong sentiment that the atrocities have caused and the grief of the families, friends and others affected, but we are writing an encyclopaedia. Such a list fails to meet our established criteria, and, understanding the strong feelings that this will generate, I am asking editors to leave emotion aside and concentrate on what is and is not encyclopaedic. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply