Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Dream Team


 * 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 &rarr; default keep. There is sufficient discussion among good faith editors who are attempting to reach consensus but fail to do so to indicate that a consensus cannot at the present time be reached. The argument about copyright violation is potentially valid, in which case, the articles should be addressed according to Copyright problems. The discussion below suggests that the contents do not fall under the 'blatent copyright' class of speedy deletable articles, but rather require copyright adjudication for proper resolution and precedent setting actions. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

List of deaths in Dream Team

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I've recently come across Articles for deletion/List of deaths in The Sopranos series nomination. A brief search shows several smilar lists, that IMO have no encyclopedic content and could be described as fancruft. The guideline I am applying is WP:NOT. There are more lists like the upper one, namely: While those three are notable soap operas, the content could be included in an article like Timeline of ..., but not as a list.
 * List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders
 * List of births, marriages and deaths in Emmerdale
 * List of births, marriages and deaths in Brookside
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  Tone 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lists of deaths and other sort of plot elements, with not third party sources providing real world content, are nothing but derivative works, and thus huge copyright violations for Wikipedia. This is the same reason we don't allow detail, scene-for-scene descriptions of plots for entertainment articles. All non-free content must have real world information, and have justification (i.e. meet fair use requirements) for existence. This includes images, plots, and death/birth/marriage lists. Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching a film/television show/etc.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - information about cultural impact etc. can be found in the individual articles for the characters born, married and deceased - these are, after all, only lists. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Being a list doesn't mean you can escape having encyclopedic content. See Notability (fiction) and Manual of Style (writing about fiction). To summarize:"Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective"   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment to refer to the nomination - I'll move them to "Timeline of births, marriages and deaths in ____" if that is what you're after, because, without the title of "List" - they are, esentially a timeline. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the "Wikipedia is an 'out of universe' source" is that hard. Changing the title doesn't change the information. There is nothing but in-universe information here. Derivative work should be clear. It means it's a violation of copyright, because all this is article is is major plot points from a copyrighted episode. Titles have nothing to do with it. Cover it on a season page, or an episode page where you can include real world content, which will help satisfy fair use criteria.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're familiar with soap operas, but they don't have seasons, and (as EastEnders transmits four episodes a week and Emmerdale six), they don't have separate episode pages on Wikipedia, either, which is why this information is collected in these lists. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole story of the soap opera can be summarized in an article. Eventually, splitted to decades or similar. --Tone 22:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) The EastEnders list was originally on an article called Storylines of EastEnders, but this was split into decades, then the list of births, marriages and deaths at the bottom of the article was split into its own article. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it should either be created or dropped entirely. The fact that their television format doesn't permit a "season" article to be created does not change the fact that this article is a derivative work of the show. With NO real world content, this article does not meet the fair use criteria required for non-free material. Thus, it's a violation of copyright and should be deleted. That isn't even mentioning the fact that it's trivial in nature, and lacks any kind of notability.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that an article split it's information doesn't mean it still isn't supposed to follow policies and guidelines. If they did something incorrectly, tough, that doesn't change the fact that they created derivative works that contain absolutely no real world content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a substitution for watching some soap opera. We have SoapNet for that.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Only in America. A list of characters is not a copyright violation - if it is, then how come cast lists exist here without being tagged for deletion? (I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but they're never classed as copyright violations, I don't see the difference - just seems like a bad excuse for deletion to be honest) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the difference. A "List of EastEnders cast members" is fine, if that is what it is. They generally look like this list here. The major difference, which I have tried to get across is that this isn't a cast list, this is a list of plot events. THAT makes it a copyright violation. Listing a character's name isn't, but listing events that occured in a copyrighted program IS. To better explain, the fact that you don't write it up as prose doesn't change what it is. You can dress up a sheep in human clothes, but it's still a sheep. You have a "birth" section, where you just list characters that were "born". The same for death and marriage. The key is, they are not real people (real actors, but not the characters). Part of the "Writing about fiction" criteria is that you do not portray fictional characters as if they are real. That means you don't real character articles in the format of a biography, as you would a living person, and you don't create a list of "deaths". Part of the "Wikipedia is not" points is that Wikipedia is not a list of memorials, not for living people, and especially not for fictional ones.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete because the information is provided in the list is essentially indiscriminate. There is no real-world context behind having this kind of list, as opposed a list of the world's tallest buildings or a list of the most expensive films.  It is essentially trivial in nature, failing to qualify as encyclopedic content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all per above discussions, and nom. Such lists have no encyclopedic value whatsoever.  Lists are not immune to notability guidelines.  Someguy1221 05:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a copyright violation AFAIK since it summarizes multiple plots, and doesn't attempt to steal from the originators (which is what copyright is there to protect). It is "real world" in the sense that these events occurred in a real world soap opera.  Ridding all fictional lists, which according to the above arguments is unencyclopaedic because they portray fictional planets etc. as "real", means you'd have to get rid of List of lost ships of Starfleet, List of Star Wars races (A-E) etc. etc. in the Lists of fictional things Category  Stephenb (Talk) 09:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to read derivative work. Summarizing a plot is the definition of a derivative work, because you are using non-free content. And this list summarizes every plot, major and minor. Also, please don't play semantics. There is a difference between out of universe, and the in universe tone of this page. Real world content does mean "the fictional real world". These people are not real. When they die, their actors go on to other gigs, they aren't really dead. No one said they shouldn't. I have never seen the lists. There are 2 million articles on Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen anywhere near all of them.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this summarizes multiple plots in tabular format, and therefore cannot be derivative. Saying that "a married b" in a fictional story is NOT a violation of copyright (if it was, almost all of the articles summarizing plots of novels would violate copyright). I know these people aren't real - don't patronise, please - but the soap opera is, and the real-world fact that the soap opera storyline has included such birth, deaths and marriages is, well, a real-world fact. Stephenb (Talk) 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still a plot event. It doesn't have to be a summary in prose. Look at derivative work again, it says "major, basic copyrighted aspects of the original". Last time I checked, two specific people, from a specific show, getting married, is a major, basic copyrighted aspect of that show. Saying "marriage in said show is..." is not, but when you start identifying copyrighted characters, and major plot events that occurred with said characters you fall into a derivative work. Networks have successfully sued over that type of stuff, matter of fact, a gentlemen was sued over his use of quotes from Seinfeld (see discussion that took place in the link to the left). The fact that you put it in a table doesn't change what it does, and that's reveal major copyrighted aspects of that show. The reason some articles are allowed is because they provide real world content about their subject, and the plot is used as context (i.e. production, reception, themes, etc). This article has no such thing. You really need to read WP:WAF. The fact that you viewed a fictional marriage on TV does not make IT a real-world fact. It's a fact the show held a fake wedding, but that isn't real world information. It's copyrighted information. Real world information would be "how did they create the wedding ceremony" (i.e. production information), "why did the director/writers choose this", "what were some themes exhibited during the episode".    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a set of plot event summaries, and they are not reused in another plot. Summaries of copyrighted material are not violations of copyright so long as they are used to illustrate an article (in Wikipedia or otherwise) - for instance, reviews of films, summaries of books/tv shows/films in other other books/tv shows/films.  I repeat the point that lots of articles in Wikipedia summarize plot events - if your reading of this is the case, almost of of these plot summaries would need to be removed as violations of copyright.  The article doesn't "reveal" major copyrighted aspects of the show; those were 'revealed' on broadcast!  "Real world" information does include information about a story - stories exist in the real world - they don't just occur in my head :-).  Stephenb (Talk) 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when you merely summarize a copyrighted work you are violating the copyright. Film reviews don't do that, they mention aspects of the film, but it is in context with the analyzing they do. They aren't discussing what happens in a film, they are discussing why something happens in a film, and why they think about it happening. Show me a film review that does nothing but play back the film for you. The fact that "lots of articles" have problems doesn't negate the problem with this one. Please point them out, I'll let you know if they should be deleted as well. There is a reason we have a limit to the words used to describe a plot of a film, novel etc. Having a plot summary is not the problem, 'UNLESS that is all they have. Read any featured article, and you'll have a better understanding of what an entertainment article should consist of. You will not find a single featured article on entertainment topics that is JUST a plot summary. Won't happen. The fact that others exists is only because there are 2 million articles on this site and we can't keep track of every single one. Also, it being reveal during broadcast does not negate the copyright they put on the show. I didn't see the show, so it wasn't revealed to me. You should read derivative work more closely, and also the articles about fair use, and what constitutes qualification for fair use. Simply having a plot summary (which is a non-free commodity) does not. To qualify for fair use you need to have some form of encyclopedic information around it, describing it, providing critical commentary on it, for it to qualify. This is why we don't have non-free images on "List of ____ episodes" any longer, because they do not qualify. As you would say, "it's just an image, it was revealed on broadcast"...doesn't matter, it's still subject to copyright laws. For something that isn't, see Night of the Living Dead. Here is a film that lapsed into public domain.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you're now claiming it is because the article is JUST a plot summary? Well, it isn't, it is an amalgamation, and leaves out all of the other soapy plots and events throughout the lifetime of the show.  Quoting your much loved Derivative work (which I've read much more closely than you, it seems) article: A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" - in this case, this article is different enough to the original (I can't see anyone claiming that the article robs EastEnders from any viewership!). It is, effectively, new work.  EastEnders, at no point, has consisted of simply a list of births, marriages and deaths.  Derivative work here simply doesn't apply.  As for "it wasn't revealed to you" - the fact that all of the events were publically broadcast means that you needn't have seen it. Stephenb (Talk)
 * I said the article is just plot events. It doesn't have to be a summary to be a derivative work. A list of every major (and minor) plot event regarding marriage/birth/death is a derivative work of that series. Now, it isn't "different enough" because there is nothing NEW, that is what you are missing. The fact that you bring it all together isn't different enough. If you were to have third party reliable sources, discussing said events, that would be NEW. You aren't even paying attention to the part that clearly says "NEW WORK". Your work isn't new, it isn't even different from what was already in the show. It simply just puts it together. With your line of thinking, I could write a book that mentions every death/marriage/birth in EastEnders, and they couldn't do a darn thing about it. WRONG. They could sue me for every penny I make on that book. What is Wiki doing? It's providing a "FREE" version of everything that network "PAID" to produce. Since you stopped in your quote of the page, allow me to expand: "The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself". Please, tell me what part of "new material" and "must be original and copyrightable in itself" is that hard? I don't see a single thing on this page that is new material. The actors? Nope, that isn't new, they were already listed on the show's credits, and you cannot copyright an actor's name...that's just silly. Could it be the death and births? Nope, because we've already established that it was the shows. It couldn't be the characters themselves. So, again, there is no "new material" on this page, certainly not enough to constitute fair use, thus it is a violation of the original copyright.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read such books (and they weren't produced by the BBC!). The list is new - no-one has produced this list before, linking parson, date, parents etc. (parents in particular, if you're looking for "new information" is not listed in the credits as such); it is simply a by-product of information regarding a television show.  It's probably not copyrightable, I agree, but then that's because the information is in the public domain and no-one would want to, not because it would violate the BBC's copyright.  You could claim original research, I guess.   But the same goes for the List of lost ships of Starfleet etc. - none of that is new material, it's all Star Trek derived, as are most of the other fictional list articles.  Yes, I know that such precedent isn't an argument, but you do seem to be carrying on a campaign, here!  Anyway, time to leave the office :-)  Stephenb (Talk) 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They don't have to produce the books, they have to authorize their use. Smallvilles season companions are not produced by Warner Brothers, but they are authorized publications. That's the difference. The "list" is not new. That doesn't constitute "new" material. You cannot copyright a list of copyrighted material. That would mean that you could charge the BBC if they ever produced a list that looked like yours. That could never happen. The list contains copyrighted material, and ZERO new, original material. How you organize it is irrelevant to what it contains. If you made a list of deaths, and I made a prose of deaths, and you secured the rights with the BBC... then what I did was violated two copyrights. First being the BBC's and the second being yours, because you would have copyrighted the organization of the copyrighted material. But the key part of that is the securing of copyrights from the original source. That isn't being done here, it's simply a list of copyrighted work.  Information in the public domain doesn't mean no one wants it. As I pointed out Night of the Living Dead is in the PD, and I'm sure someone would want that, namely George Romero. Yes, the list of star trek ships doesn't meet fair use guidelines either. It's a little less severe than a list of plot points, but then again I noticed they mention things that happen in the show, and that there is no "new" content on the page. When you have nothing but copyrighted material on a page, no matter how you organize it, you are not meeting the fair use criteria for non-free content.    BIGNOLE '    (Contact me)  16:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the books were unauthorized AFAIK - I don't know if the BBC sued :-) In this case, I believe the list is derived from publically available information about the portrayal of events within a television soap opera, not derived from the work itself (for instance, it doesn't reuse characters or plots in another fiction).  No part of the original work is reused, just summarized, and the summary is 'new'.  I don't believe the list contains copyright material - just, as I say, publically-available information, just as (say, at random) Catch-22 (Lost) talks about Desmond joining a monastery.  Perhaps I just want the rules on copyright to work sensibly, and so we'll just have to agree to differ on interpretation.  Stephenb (Talk) 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Publicly available does not equate to Public domain. Just because I have all the Smallville DVDs doesn't mean I can write a book on nothing but the fictional elements of the series. Those were copyrighted by the studio. Did you list a character's birth, or death, or marriage? Yes. Thus, you are using the original work. You are trying to play semantics in that because it doesn't look the same then it isn't the same. That is a derivative work. There is not "differing" of interpretation. It's copyrighted material, clear cut. You just want the laws to change in your favor. Sorry, but you're talking on the wrong stage for that. Bignole 12:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Stephenb and Trampikey. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Stephenb and Trampikey Gungadin 12:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: To the above editors who voted to keep, I must remind you that AfD is not a voting process, but rather a process to seek a consensus over the article in question. By reiterating someone else's recommendation, you contribute nothing to the process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not strictly true, it would be a waste of time typing out the same as what someone else has written, it just shows that the reason for your vote has already been mentioned. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed - just by agreeing with something, you add to a consensus. You don't need to add something new for a consensus, almost by definition! Stephenb (Talk) 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't voting, I was agreeing with Stephenb and Trampikey's reasons. As Trampikey said, it's not worth typing it out again as it's already been said. I can copy and paste it if you want though. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When you say "I wasn't voting", you make it sound like you don't want your keep vote counted... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * AFD isn't a vote. As Stephenb said, I was adding to the consensus. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason it isn't a vote Trampikey, is because an AfD can be closed with a verdict of "Deletion" and the number of "keep" could have been more than the number of "delete". It's based on the arguments presented. Granted, that usually isn't how it turns out, but if you look at the criteria, that is the way it is supposed to be. Bignole 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bignole. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 21:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, topical concordances for individual fictional television shows are not encyclopedic. Groupthink 21:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all -- see my Bolo Yeung argument in the Sopranos deaths AfD.--Mike18xx 04:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep: Yes, it is a telvision show, but why is that such a problem? This is an ensyclopediea and they have to be informative. TV shows are at best, art forms and deserve recordniton and the death of a TV character is genuiningly (sp?) concidered important enough to be mentioned as though it was real (But state it isn't) as the character is dead and not seen again (Apart from the odd show where they are). So this and all other death lists should stay, as this is very informative and also people may wish to know how characters died rather than a pasific characer. MJN SEIFER 16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Having articles about TV shows are not the problem. Treating TV shows, in articles, like they actually occurred is. Having an indiscriminate list of information, with not actual encyclopedic content is a problem. I think watching the actual show is more informative then reading a list that tells you what happens. Bignole 21:22, 18 June 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.