List of women killed fighting for human rights: There's also no good reason to limit it to women.  Songwaters ( talk ) 14:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The reason to delete is not policy based.  We make lists based on how reliable sources group things and the first citation shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women.  The "no reason to limit to..." concept could be applied to any list.  Why limit it to just those killed?  Why limit it to only ones killed for human rights?  The answer is always because WP:NLIST handles them in this collective way.  CT55555 ( talk ) 01:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   Besides failing WP:NLIST (more on that in a second), the inclusion criterion is hopelessly vague -- killed fighting for human rights?   Even "human rights" is a slippery term without a widely agreed upon definition, let alone the difficulty of trying to determine if someone was killed fighting for them.   As expected, this article is just going to have unfixable WP:OR / WP:SYNTH issues.   Take for example the case of Shifa Gardi.   She appears in the Guardian's list referenced in the list's lead with the following text: "Shifa Gardi was a reporter for the Kurdish channel Rudaw. She had been credited for breaking the “stereotypes of male-dominated journalism”. She was killed by a roadside bomb while covering the battle for Mosul on 25 February."  How is being a wartime reporter fighting for human rights?   Including her on this list for that reason is a stretch and a half; indeed even the articles listed as refs by her entry in the list (one BBC, another in Arabic, so I had to use a machine translation) say nothing about "human rights".  But wait, I hear you say, we have reliable sources that discuss this topic as a set.   Just look at the references in the lead!  Okay, the first one, from The Guardian is "supported" content -- supported by "Count Me In!", a consortium of groups with a clear agenda.   That's not really a value judgement, but it does count against the independence of the source for demonstrating notability.   Not to mention that the Gardi example I mentioned above calls into question the reliability of this article due to it's unclear inclusion criteria.   The other source is from AWID, an activist organization.   This again, disqualifies it from establishing notability on independence (and probably reliability for that matter) grounds.   Not only that, but it's simply a memorial list of women activists, regardless of how they died.  That was a long ! vote, but this one deserved a closer look.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 04:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are correct to note that Count Me In! support the content, but if you click through , it says "The site is editorially independent of any external support, and the Guardian is solely responsible for all journalistic output."  Other sources that deal with the killing of women human rights defenders: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/02/more-human-rights-defenders-murdered-2021-environmental-indigenous-rights-activists (not the primary subject, but discussed in 2 paragraphs) La Lucha (2015 book) Preface speaks about women human rights defenders who were killed, giving examples.  Protecting Human Rights Defenders at Risk, 2020 book: Page 108 CT55555 ( talk ) 00:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your first source is about all people and not about women specifically.   And as you argued above, "... and the first citation [in the article] shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women."  You can't have it both ways.   The third source similarly seems to be discussing all people, whereas the page number you mention is talking about one specific incident.   The second source doesn't seem to be discussing women specifically at all...you're just throwing words into a search box and parading around any hits you get as some sort of magical potion to justify a list, but it doesn't work like that.   The very sources you bring up are, if anything, evidence against this particular list.   And really, at best, what you're doing here is starting to show notability of the overall topic of "violence against human rights activists" or something along those lines (which might even exist already...I haven't looked).   But just because we might have an article about that doesn't mean that we should create a list of every incident.   Lists like this are beyond problematic due to the unfixable OR/SYNTH issues that I mentioned above.   They also smack of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:RGW to a lesser extent.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 20:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first link is about all genders, but then groups by gender and talks about women: "A larger proportion of murdered defenders were women and transgender women, 18% of the total killed compared with 13% in 2020. We’ve seen the horrific killing of women human rights defenders in Afghanistan, including Frozan Safi..."  The second one groups the defender as women in the preface.  The third one groups four women on the page cited.  I am not "just throwing words into a search box" nor am I "parading" anything.  I'm doing the normal thing to justify keeping a list, showing you examples if reliable sources grouping the subject of the list.  If you don't find that persuasive, that's OK.  Please do assume good faith.  I think a careful reading of the WP:NOTMEMORIAL will make it clear why this does not refute my point or support deletion, I don't think there is any credible claim that anyone is writing about "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances..."  Let's agree to disagree and leave more space for others.  I've made my point, I don't wish to bludgeon.  CT55555 ( talk ) 16:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  "Human rights" is too broad (and vague) per WP:SALAT .  (Also, Emily Davison did herself in.)  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 06:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I originally thought I'd find myself in favor of keeping this, but it's absolutely just way too broad and too vague.  This one fails the WP:NLIST requirements, so it should be deleted from Wiki.  Some content might be able to merge to other articles, but having a dedicated list isn't feasible here.  Pumpkinspyce ( talk • contribs ) 00:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  At risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS , to the editors who think that "human rights" is a vague term, it does seem to work fine for List of human rights organisations and we seem to be able to deal with the topic without trouble at Human Rights .  We manage to categorise XCategory:Human rights by country , XCategory:Human rights abuses and dozens of others.  So what's the problem exactly?  CT55555 ( talk ) 16:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete “human rights” is well defined, more or less.  “Fighting for” human rights is not, making this WP:SYNTH .  This might as well be retitled “ list of women who I think should be considered martyrs ” Dronebogus ( talk ) 00:45, 3 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete