The magic of WPEdit

The creation of Richard Toop, is now the third (I think) time where an article on my 'to create list' has been created by someone else before I got to it. Honestly so refreshing to see. On a side note, how crazy do you think it would be to try and organize a collab this summer to get Bach to GA? Aza24 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Please readEdit

The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions-

Plus see ANI discussions here[1] and here[2]. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 03:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE: I did read most of the threads you mention before I restored the list of fatalities/survivors of the 1937 Airlines of Australia Stinson crash; i've now read them all. In case you missed it, I repeat my edit summary: "restore list of fatalities/survivors whose names have been mentioned in a coronial inquiry, numerous newspaper reports, on memorial plaques, in at least 1 book, and in a film – not mentioning them here is unencyclopedic." The article mentions in its narration the three survivors by name, and they have named roles in the film about the crash, so removing a concise list with sources is churlish. Your removal also removed some valuable citations from the article and left a nonsensical section heading. None of the previous discussions you pointed out prohibit such a list in this particular article. That such discussions with range of editors have taken place is a good indication that the consensus you claim does not exist. The repeated references to WP:MEMORIAL don't hold water in this case, and there are no BLP or conspiracy issues here. The claim that only people with Wikipedia articles can be mentioned in an article is obvious nonsense. I suggest you restore that list in that article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Your claim is the nonsense. Wikipedia consensus is clearly against naming the victims. Another editor didn't think so, and was put down at those two ANI discussions I linked to. You want to go to ANI, go ahead....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
You now that ANI is not the venue for content disputes. You haven't addressed any of the points I raised, nor pointed to a discussion that came to a broad-reaching consensus in this matter. Instead, I see regular objection to your position, which admittedly sometimes is supported by proper arguments (BLP, WP:MEMORIAL, swatting conspiracy theories), none of which apply here. But your well-thought out counterargument, "Your claim is the nonsense." (Which claim?), is utterly convincing, and so I will follow my usual zero-revert practice. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)