Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of journalists killed in the United States

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.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of journalists killed in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is merely a list of victims of crimes (in some cases), or accidents, or unsolved deaths, many of the people on it being non-Notable. There is already some comment about this article on its talk page.GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When you read the definition "discriminate" and "indiscriminate" information at Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information and examples are given, I doubt whether you can actually tie this list to indiscriminate class. The list has a focus and all the members of the list meet the requirements of that focus. The items are displayed in a thoughtful way with prepared categories and listed in chronological order with table sorting for preferred readability. Every item has been verified. The list is open as more cases are likely to occur in the future. Lastly, I would like to point you to :Uncle G's essay "On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate". If you wish to make this argument, please explain why it is indiscriminate.Crtew (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article is encyclopedic, and I think it can mirror articles like List of journalists killed in the Mexican Drug War, which I believe is extremely useful. There are other articles like this one too. (See here, here, and here, to list a few). Perhaps more prose is needed, but that can be solved. ComputerJA (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence:

Keep per Computer. Individual entries in the list do not have to be notable, only the subject of the list. There has been much written about journalists killed or detained in the US, hence this passes WP:LISTN — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. LISTPURP: This list and others meet all of the criteria set out by WP:LISTPURP, which spells out the proper reason for the creation of lists. Those reasons given on the policy page are: 1) Information, 2) Navigation, 3) Development, and 4) Beneficial List and Category redundancies. First, the list allows information to be displayed (time of death, medium and news outlet, place, short description and references. Secondly, navigation is enhanced as this list and the other serve as a "Table of Contents" for the topic of killing of journalists in the US. Third, in terms of development, the benefits of such lists are already apparent for those of us who are creating content about the journalists and related human rights/freedom of speech issues as we can see which articles need work or creation. Fourth, the list of this type does have redundant categories, such as Category:Journalists killed in the United States, and there are some lists for wars that even include templates. All of these allow different kinds of displays that enhance Wikipedia's use depending up the needs of the information seeker.Crtew (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable list of (mainly) notable individuals. Clear inclusion crieteria too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We've already had this debate for lists of journalists killed in other countries, so I think we need to stop trying to delete these lists. The individuals listed were killed because they were journalists, so this is not simply a list of murder victims with a common profession. Human rights NGOs publish lists/reports of murdered journalists and this subject is studied in academia. Seems to me the only way to vote on this is "keep."David Straub (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not find this to be an indiscriminate list. The focus and inclusion criteria are clear, and the individual entries are well-cited. Location (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The deaths (or arrests) of working journalists are an important and notable topic. One indicator of the topic's importance is the existence of the Committee to Protect Journalists. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably SNOW per Orlady. Journalists killed simply because of their occupation is an encyclopedic topic with a wide variety of sourcing. The nominator hinted a list in which journalists were killed in accidents, or random crimes, etc but the list doesn't show it. I don't see any valid policy based delete reasoning in this debate. Secret ^account 18:15, 22 December 2012 (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.