Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Six Feet Under deaths (2nd nomination)


 * 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 No consensus. Will put a suggestion to merge on the article.  Citi Cat   ♫ 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Six Feet Under deaths
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is completely unsourced and primarily fancruft that tacks on original research and editor statistical analysis of the show. Yes, death is the major focus of this particular show, however if these deaths are of great importance, they should (and mostly are) be covered in the plot summaries in List of Six Feet Under episodes. Having a second article just to list off the deaths for each episode is unnecessary and redundant. (relisting of earlier withdrawn multiple article nomination) Collectonian (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft at its worst.--Esprit15d (۝ • ۞ • ▲ ) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect I added the merge tag 2 weeks ago when someone protested that the article had been redirected as "trivial list. These should be covered within the episode list anyways." About a week ago, I pointed out that those wishing to keep the information should start the merge soon, or the list could be AfDed any day. Well, nothing happened, so the (non-notable) list should no longer have its own article. I could/would recommend a merge, but I don't want to be the admin who closes this nom. Merging can be done as an editorial process later, either by keeping a redirect, userfying, or someone asking later for a copy (if deleted). – sgeureka t•c 16:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as some of the cercumstances of the deaths that begin each episode are not covered in the episode synopsis, are central to the episode theme over many episodes, that are difficult to explain except as an 'arc' of the show. Examples: the death of 8 Chloe Anne Bryant Yorkin played into the tackovers of Kroners taking over the skills of Diaz. The death of 13 Lilian Grace Montrose was also by Kroners in not having care of its actions. Death of 32 Callie Renee Mortimer related to the thoughtless actions by her friends vis a vis Diaz wanting to see how care was delivered to the dead's family, as shown in difference culturally with death 68 Pilar Sandoval (cacasuan v. hispanic funeral patterns) Anyway that is what the list says to me and why it should be kept. rkmlai (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Excuse me for not understanding what you just said (really), but it seems like you're arguing from a position of plot relevance. However Notability (fiction) (which also applies to lists) requires real-world notability and/or significant coverage from the secondary sources, which I doubt exist. Now, I don't object to the wish to keep the in-universe information (and actor names), but why is a separate article needed for the deaths? (Especially since the episode list is a fine merge target if someone wants to do the actual merge.) – sgeureka t•c 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with Merge or Improvement of article. I object to outright deletion as was originally done here and here. I am working on a way to merge the articles but writing takes time. I dont want to change the page (on wikipedia) while the debate is in progress especially as I find out these messages, such as yours, days after they have ben posted. rkmlai (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-admins cannot delete articles. The article was just redirected. You can merge articles while they are redirected, but as long as progress is made, a temporary keep is alright. As I said, the lack of secondary sources makes article improvement very hard to imagine, but merging into the episode list is IMO the perfect way. If you volunteer, great. I would change my recommendation to keep/merge depending on how soon you'd begin. – sgeureka t•c 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As explained in the previous AFD just two days ago. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep this is one of the main elements of the show 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because it is not notable, it is not verifiable, and it is indiscriminate in terms of plot detail and statistics. First of all, WP:N requires for a topic to establish notability through significant coverage by multiple reliable sources.  The article simultaneously does not meet WP:V with the lack of secondary sources, which leads to WP:IINFO.  In-universe information is supposed to be supplied to complement real-world context of the topic (and the topic cannot exist here due to lack of notability).  Instead, there exist statistics without verifiable explanatory text at List of Six Feet Under deaths.  I recognize that death is a common theme in Six Feet Under, but this non-notable list of indiscriminate in-universe information gives no encyclopedic insight about this theme.  A better approach would be to use academic studies of how the TV series has depicted the deaths, which would qualify as real-world context.  This existing list does not warrant encyclopedic inclusion for this multitude of reasons. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment These are all reasons to improve the article, not to delete it. See WP:NOEFFORT.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, there is no notability for such a list. WP:NOEFFORT does not apply if the list is not warranted to exist on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for the same reason I gave last time and also because it is a discriminate list. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not discriminate at all. Under WP:NOT, this fictional topic fails to contain any "sourced information on the works' real-world context"; also, "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article."  Additionally, it contains statistics, and under WP:NOT, "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader."  There is no verifiable explanatory text for the statistics, only original unsubstantiated calculations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 100% discriminate in that it only lists deaths from one show whose centered on death. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no verifiable indication that such a list is discriminate. You say that the show is centered on death, I say the show is centered on homosexuality, someone says that the show is centered on character development.  Even if an aspect of the show is verifiably relevant, it does not immediately warrant a list.  Death in the show, if it is thematically relevant, can be explored in prose passages using secondary sources talking about its real-world context.  Here, there's no verifiable distinction that death is anything more than a plot point.  It does not warrant listing any more than any other plot point that may be subjectively deemed by you or me as discriminate.  Ultimately, the list fails to address any sort of real-world context; it is still a compilation of plot points, which I've indicated is clearly not appropriate per WP:NOT. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Six Feet Under" refers to people being six feet below the ground when buried. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of secondary coverage to show notability, as required by Notability (fiction). Also, without secondary references discussing "deaths in Six Feet Under", the article's whole approach is original research (not just the statistics), because treating the deaths in isolation from the rest of the plot is an original method for studying the series. EALacey 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge as considered in the nom. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.