Talk:List of victims of the Our Lady of the Angels school fire
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 December 2015. The result of the discussion was merge to Our Lady of the Angels School fire. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled edit
I does not seem obituarial at all to me--straight facts, no opinion. It does suffer from single sourcing.
- I agree, but could you please sign your posts? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- KEEP: I agree, it is not obituarial at all. Factual, no opinion, no personal details or sentimental content. This list belongs in Wikipedia because it is part of the historical record of this national news-making event, and because people turning to Wikipedia for data about the fire may be looking precisely for this, which is not otherwise readily available. The name- and body-count by room could be of use or interest to a wide variety of users -- including genealogists and people attending firefighting schools. Furthermore, there is at least one other source cited, LIFE Magazine, re a famed photo of a child's corpse being removed. — LisaSmall T/C 20:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- The list of names of those injured, while part of the national record, should not be here. WP is not a repository for ALL information on any event, just a select sample. A skinned knee is not worthy of note.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Why wouldn't this list be part of the entry for the fire itself? Also, not sure why the death dates for the teachers who died years after the fire of unrelated causes would be included? ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree too - it is not obituarial at all. But a list of the victims names is the reason for the entire main article - a school burns, and *people die* because of that. The "largely single source" idea is valid, but how many different sources for the names of the deceased do you think there could be, especially after 57 years? I also agree that the names of the injured (who recovered) do not need to be in this article. As far as merging this article with the main article, I would not be opposed to that, but it would swell the size of the (already large) article quite a bit. But whether merging it, or keeping it separate, do keep the list of victims names, absolutely. And I repeat: It is not in any way written as a "memorial", and that tag should be buried. Melos Antropon (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)