Deletion of Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks

Comment: WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I would like to find a way to |preserve some of this content, but as it is so blatantly against the consensus to not list the victims, that seems impossible. Even if Wikipedia is |not censored, I find it to be somewhat dishonorable and heartless to spread names or other personal details of victims. A tactic usually supported by hawkish western governments and selfish money-obsessed media. Also: 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: the wording in emorial clearly does not apply in this case. The wording in Memorial applies to individuals. This isn't an article about any one individual. This is a list of individuals, and the list is quite significant
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mediation (WP:M)

Comment: So now there is this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks (2nd nomination).  the 3rd AFD for that particular article, and a possible violation of .  I looked at the article and old version of it, a list version deleted somewhat arbitrarily, made me rethink this discussion. Scroll down: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casualties_of_the_2008_Mumbai_attacks&oldid=254605257.  Seeing the names of individuals creates a very different understanding of an event than a statistical summary.  After seeing that list, I want to redouble my argument on behalf of creating and keeping such lists of slaughtered human beings.  Lists of individual people  Failing to list them as individuals, while describing the lives, motives, and circumstances of the killers at length - sometimes with empathy, but always as individual people with names, now seems to me to actively discount the loss produced by these attacks, to give  weight to the perspective of killers and actually if inadvertently to tend towards producing the biased articles that we all strive to avoid
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: I see no blue-link entries in the list nor any probable blue-links. Fails . Tom Ruen, ; Nazism, Auschwitz and Sobibor lists are list of blue-links and hence perfectly valid. Rest others might someday also face the AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST||WP:OSE)

Comment: A very expected AfD, I admit. Per , the victims may not be individually notable for articles of their own, despite the fact that many had news reports dedicated to them (which were more than just trivial mentions), but the ''subject itself'' (compiling their names in a list, that is) is notable in its own right. Some examples include http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34821813 BBC, http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2015/11/world/paris-victims/ CNN, http://projects.thestar.com/victims-of-the-paris-attacks/ Toronto Star, http://www.smh.com.au/world/paris-attacks-the-list-of-victims-from-frances-worstever-terrorist-assault-20151115-gkzfwh.html Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/15/paris-attacks-identities-of-victims-from-more-than-a-dozen-countries-emerge The Guardian, http://www.lastampa.it/2015/11/14/esteri/i-nomi-delle-vittime-della-strage-di-parigi-xknwIdcxCjsC9tKtXQ1gkN/pagina.html La Stampa, http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2015/11/15/56479576e2704e3d508b45d7.html El Mundo, etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: per . As the article stands, it's a summary of the main Paris attack article, and then a list of names. This isn't at all notable or add any information to the main article besides the names. If this included more reliable sources that talked at length about the victims as a group it could possibly work, but this article is not that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: per  and .  If other victim lists exist contrary to these policies, then they deserve their own deletion discussions, but are not policies or guidelines.  Newspapers have different inclusion criteria than encyclopedias
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:NOTAMEMORIAL)

Comment: Wikipedia is Wikipedia:NOTAMEMORIAL|not a memorial or a Wikipedia:NOTINDISCRIMINATE|list of indiscriminate information. The "victims" certainly do not pass , as is claimed. People notable for , i.e. their deaths, are not notable at all, nor is a list of them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ONEVENT)

Comment: content to November 2015 Paris attacks; the main article is not large enough to justify a split per 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:PAGESIZE)

Comment: WP:MEMORIAL says not to write memorials for non-notable people, and  says that people tangentially involved in an event are not notable.  Lists of victims are inherently memorials.  There are more appropriate places than Wikipedia to create these memorials
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a memorial: we went through this with the 9-11 attacks. If we do this, where do we stop? I'm in complete sympathy with your intentions, but the way to do this is to create an online memorial website for these people, which you can do in far greater detail that would be allowed on Wikipedia, not to put it here: please see Wikia or other hosting facilities for how this might be done. Such a site could even be published as a book, which would put this into mankind's permanently archived record as a perpetual memorial. See  and  for more on this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:MEMORIAL||WP:OTHERSTUFF)