Wikipedia:Casualty lists
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Lists of casualties of an event are acceptable so long as secondary sources provide coverage. This helps our article reflect a neutral point of view. |
In events where people die by homicide or accident, it is appropriate to provide names and other minor details if our secondary sources provide such coverage. Omitting such detail imbalances the article towards the event itself, or worse, towards the perpetrator (in the event of a mass murder or shooting, for example). While Wikipedia is not a memorial, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not only says articles about the dead are inappropriate. We are only providing a small section of an article to individuals who became notable through their connection to the event covered by the article.
Naming the dead is also appropriate as it personalizes the subject for the reader in a way simple facts such as age, gender and ethnicity do not.
Common objections
editBelow are some of the common objections to including lists of casualties in articles, with arguments against those objections.
While the onus is on those wishing to include disputed information to gain consensus, this is not, in itself, a reason to exclude the information. It does qualify as dick move though. Regardless, including names and other details provides balance against articles that oftentimes become preoccupied with the motives of an assailant, or the fallout/aftermath of the event.
As clearly stated in WP:NOTMEMORIAL, articles about non-notable subjects simply to memorialize them are not allowed. However, this emphatically does not apply to article content. And simply naming the victims hardly qualifies as memorializing them, especially if, again, it provides balance and a neutral point of view for the article overall.
Simply put, if names and other details are reported widely in the media and/or provided in official government press releases, the concept of privacy for these individuals was waived along with it. WP:BDP states that [extending BLP] would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.
Simple facts such as names and age are neither contentious nor questionable (certainly not in the spirit of what BDP says).