User:EF5/NOTMEMORIAL - misinterpreted?

On Wikipedia, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a policy that states Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances. Despite being clear-cut and blunt in its purpose, it has a tendency to be misinterpreted, whether that be involving the inclusion of victim-based lists or including fatality counts overall.

The basics of WP:NOTMEMORIAL

I'd include an image as I usually do for my essays, but given the subject matter this large black box will do.

NOTMEMORIAL as a policy broadly explains that the following things do not belong on Wikipedia:

• Non-notable people who have died
• Memorials to said people

It's about as simple as it gets, and I 100% agree with the policy. The problem, however, is when we start to see how many issues the second part of that causes. Including list of victims from a specific tornado is something that is part of my writing style (see User:EF5/Guide to writing about tornadoes#Fatality tables), and is not something that needs to be included everywhere. A great example of a table-related issue was at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Greensburg tornado/archive1, where Hurricanehink mentioned that you give the exact names for people, in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Now, I'm not disagreeing with this at all, this is a great use of the policy! At the time, there was no table - it was an indiscriminate list of victims that was covered by two citations. This falls under the "non-notable people who have died" part of NOTMEMORIAL, and I'm including it as an example of good policy usage.

Issues noted

There are no glaring issues with the policy itself; I think it's written as clear as possible and generally makes sense. Rush Limbaugh stated that "in order for the Constitution to work, you have to have law-abiding people", and that's sort of the issue with NOTMEMORIAL. This is the closest quote I can actually find to what I'm trying to explain, so regardless of the speaker's political ideology we'll use it. Some frequent misinterpretations of NOTMEMORIAL that I've noticed:

• Users confusing "non-notable" with "only people who have articles".
• Users including tables under "memorials"
• More broadly, users lobbying that naming victims of an event is in direct violation of NOTMEMORIAL.

What do I think?

I personally disagree with all three points above. On the first point, ssers confusing "non-notable" with "only people who have articles", that is a falsehood. Notability doesn't always equate to someone having an article, this is why WP:Merging exists. On the second point, users including tables under "memorials", I disagree that a table displaying basic information can be called a "memorial". In fact, we have articles like list of victims of 9/11 among others, so this point can be rendered moot. On the third and largest point, users lobbying that naming victims of an event is in direct violation of NOTMEMORIAL, nowhere in the policy does it say that including names of victims anywhere goes against NOTMEMORIAL.