Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in The Sopranos series


 * 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/keep. On raw numbers, the keepers have an edge, but not a great one.

As to the policy issues, WP:NOT was repeatedly cited as a reason to delete, with varying sections referred to. That policy is clear that consensus only exists about the ten numerically listed points. It's not clear from this discussion that it fails any of those points. My own opinion is that a plausible argument could be made it fails 7: plot summaries, but there was almost no discussion here of that point, so I won't delete on those grounds. The argument based on the directory section of the same policy is not persuasive. There were also several guideline-based arguments, mostly regarding WP:TRIVIA. TRIVIA doesn't apply because it is about trivia sections in articles, and (as indicated at the end of the intro) not whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia. What's more, the guideline was meant to address unorganized lists of facts (trivia sections), which this list is not, since it has clear criteria for inclusion. Besides those issues, the debate is mostly about whether deaths are important enough to the Sopranos to justify having this list. That is a question of opinion that policy doesn't, or hasn't yet, clearly addressed, so the numbers carry the day.

I'll leave the derivative work issue to Copyright problems.--Chaser - T 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

List of deaths in The Sopranos series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

While I am aware that death scenes are notable within the fan community of The Sopranos and that they are noticeably grim and realistic. I fail to see how this list contains useful information. At this point, nearly every character who has had more than two lines on the show has been profiled on Wikipedia. So if reader seriously needed to know when and where a character died, than they could search the corresponding article. It also contains information on non-notable deaths and trivial statistics that are unsourced (and would be difficult to cite). These inclusions of trivial characters should be removed per WP:NOT. The Filmaker 15:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That is not a valid reason for a delete -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it is. An article that poses no useful information (or "no point") should not be kept on Wikipedia. The Filmaker 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. You can't just say "pointless" and think that will cut the mustard.  Maybe you should read up on what to NOT say when voting on a deletion.  It's a discussion.  Discussions aren't based on 1 word.  ELABORATE, and EXPLAIN why you THINK it's pointless.  In that case, I can just vote on every single AfD with "pointless".  C'mon now...  -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, maybe the act of simply stating "pointless" was not the correct route for the voter to take to state his opinion. However the point (no pun intended) of the article being pointless (i.e. lacking useful information"). The Filmaker 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Information about who died and how is available in the various character and episode articles.  An exhaustive list of deaths is something more suited to a fansite than an encyclopedia.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep or Merge I agree with sumnjim; this list makes it easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died, thus making it easier to find such information since it's all on one page. Also, what if a reader does not know the name of the dead character for whom they are searching? They could find their answer much quickly here with the images provided. Cliff smith 17:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, well first, sumnjim never actually stated his opinion on the deletion, just his opinion how the use of the single word "pointless". So there's nothing to agree with him with. If the reader does not know the name of the character, than it is most likely that the character is non-notable. Thus the information is trivial and should not be included per WP:NOT. Finally, it appears that images will soon be removed per the free-image policy be enacted on the article. The Filmaker 21:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you say about agreeing with sumnjim. As far as the pictures go, perhaps they should be moved to their respective characters if they will be removed from this list. Cliff smith 23:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Given how notable Sopranos is and how important the deaths are to the show, I vote for a keep. Obviously a 'Deaths on Seinfeld' wouldn't have the same effect.--CyberGhostface 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because something is notable or true does not warrant an article. The deaths on the show are notable, however the article offers no commentary or reception information for the deaths. Just non-notable statistics and facts that are present in other articles. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So perhaps the article should be expanded instead of flatout deleted. Articles should only be deleted if there is no room for improvement.--CyberGhostface 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is "List of deaths in The Sopranos series" thereby stating that the article is no more than a list. If it were to feature any commentary or reception than it would have expanded beyond it's purpose. It should than be titled "Deaths in The Sopranos series" at which point it would be realized that a list of every single death is not needed and it would only discuss the notable deaths (such as Big     ). The Filmaker 01:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, the Sopranos has been an incredible show over the years. Deaths have played a major role in this series. --Dodge Dude 18:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See above. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This page is a very great suppliment to the other Sopranos articles out there. Wanting it deleted because it's "pointless" is just silly.  If you want to be that way, I vote to delete Fart because I think THAT is pointless  -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The "pointless" comment was made by another user. Not by me. Please read my other comments before you vote. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said you said it :) -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you replied only to that comment and none of my own, implied that that was what you believed. I meant no offense. The Filmaker 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. A very useful navigation device, especially when you don't know the name of the character. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT. The Filmaker 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete fancruft; if the character's death is important it should be in the main article; if not, it's just trivia. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that it's a great navigation tool.--MistaTee 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We are starting to stretch the extent of convenience and navigation. Should also place a List of characters that have appeared to Tony Soprano's dreams? The dreams are a notable element to the series. These are convenient but are they needed when the reader has an easy enough time finding the information in the first place? The Filmaker 22:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per discussion above. Sfufan2005 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What discussion? It's pretty much me stating why I feel the article should be deleted and one man with one comment refuting one statement. Which I have responded to. What discussion? The Filmaker 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an immensely popular series, and the deaths are an important aspect of it.  That this would be even nominated for deletion is absurd.  MattHucke(t) 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the series is popular is not in question, nor is the notability of the deaths in the series. But, how is this list useful? The reason why the deaths are notable is not discussed within the article (and technically should not be as this is merely supposed to be a "list" of deaths) there is not useful information. As for navigation, it is unneeded as well, the deaths can be found in corresponding episode and character articles. The Filmaker 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I come to see this page frequently, this MUST BE KEPT! The Sopranos is a very important television show and the deaths are a very key point of the series, this page cannot be taken away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.60.4 (talk • contribs)
 * This comment does not seem to refute anything I've stated above. The Filmaker 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have had so much interesting reading on Wikipedia about this series and this list is one of my favorites. I can't see a reason why it should be deleted. cun 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably because you have not bothered to read any of the my comments above. The Filmaker 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That, or he just doesn't agree with them.--CyberGhostface 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * CyberGhostface is right. Keep this lovable and highly interesting list! cun 10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Highly interesting" is not a criteria for articles to be kept. The Filmaker 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? Why not keep articles and lists that people actually do find interesting and useful? cun 10:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Has anyone been reading any of the comments I have posted in reply to any of these oppositions? First, just because an article is somewhat interesting or true does not warrant it to be kept, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Second, how is the article useful, at most it can be used as a navigation tool. But it is easy enough for readers to find information on the deaths of key characters through corresponding character and episode articles. If you are speaking of trivial characters such as Man #1 than they should not be included for being non-notable and trivial, per WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. The Filmaker 10:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The gift of Wikipedia is the free flow of information. This list is one of interest, navigation and trivia, it does not contain spam of any sorts. The death list is a clear cut source of information about crucial events in the show and should be kept as it. The timeline and episode guide also work as information, but the death list is remarkably relevant and down to the core about important lines in the story (although not everyone included is as important to the narration, but that serves as a way to underline the realism of the TV show). cun 10:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The gift of Wikipedia is the free flow of information.
 * But is not indiscriminate.
 * This list is not indiscriminate. That's an axiom. cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The list contains information every single death in The Sopranos series. Including every character such Man #1, little boy on bike, and even animals. How is that not indiscriminate? The Filmaker 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree to a certain point that information like that is criticizable, but they do not destroy the overall impression. Animals are dealt with on a separate part of the list and therefore not interfering with the main list.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But we're talking about the article as a whole, animals an element of the list. So you understand that this information is easy to criticize, yet it does not deserve to be deleted.
 * "Easy to criticize" does not automatically mean worthy of deletion. cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rephrase, easy to criticize, meaning there is a problem with the article. The problem needs to be fixed either now or later. The problem cannot be fixed now and it cannot be fixed later. Thus either some reorganizing is in order or we need to get rid of the problem.
 * This list is one of interest, navigation and trivia, it does not contain spam of any sorts.
 * Interest is not criteria for an article to be kept, it does not contribute a huge source for navigation, trivia is not allowed on Wikipedia, and I never mentioned spam.
 * Common interest is of course a criteria for an article to be kept. We don't want to read articles about the ordinary Joe, but those phenomenons of art, culture, history, science etc that affect a lot of people. It does contribute a huge source of navigation and greater understanding of the power relationships in the show. Trivia should be allowed on Wikipedia, but that's another discussion. As far as I'm concerned, first and foremost spam is the kind of thing we should concentrate on ridding Wikipedia of, not relevant lists like this.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because something is true or interesting does not mean it is relevant enough for Wikipedia. You believe trivia should be included, which as you said, is a different discussion. So I can't change your opinion on this.


 * I don't understand your animosity towards this list. I think the list is relevant enough for Wikipedia. Seems we are just in a fundamental disagreement.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you believe trivia should be allowed. I along with many others do not. But according to Wikipedia policy, this information should not remain.
 * I don't see that clearly through the indiscriminate stuff you linked to.cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more WP:TRIVIA.
 * The death list is a clear cut source of information about crucial events in the show and should be kept as it.
 * The information is available elsewhere in better and more accessible articles.
 * No, it's not. cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, yes it is. All of the relevant information within the article is available in corresponding character articles and episode articles, not to mention the main Sopranos article.


 * No article or list sums up the clear cut action that defines the overall story in such a short manner like this death list.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the deaths are the overall story? Now we're just getting into philiosophy here. The overall story is not marked by the deaths. Yes, the deaths are a milestone, but they are not the only milestones. The information is available elsewhere.
 * The deaths are crucial in defining the overal story arc. Filtered information about something important as this is a great way to understand The Sopranos better.
 * Where is this defining information coming from? I see a list of characters who died, who killed them, in which episode, and how (nothing about relationships, the actual physical action of how they died). Unless this supposed act of defining the overall story is defined in the prose itself, then the act is not properly, if at all, being defined.
 * The timeline and episode guide also work as information, but the death list is remarkably relevant and down to the core about important lines in the story
 * The fact that the deaths are important to the story has nothing to do with the deletion of this list. The list does not contain any commentary or reception on the "realism" of the deaths in The Sopranos. And if they were added, the article would no longer be a "List of deaths in The Sopranos series" in would now need to be renamed "Deaths in The Sopranos series" which would not require a list and would remove all of the non-notable characters and would discuss only the most notable deaths, such as Big     . However, now we're getting into a totally different article. If someone wants to start this new article. Fine. But since it is a complete turn around from this article. This article should be deleted.
 * The list should shortly explain why the deaths occured in the commentary fields as a means of greater understanding of the power relations, as mentioned above.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This information can be found in the character and episode articles as well.


 * Again, not in the same, clear way as stated above.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, the manner of death is specifically stated any character or episode articles you can find. Perhaps even more in depth then this current death list.
 * We beg to differ ^^ cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is we? The other voters? The majority of which have simply stated that The Sopranos is important and the deaths are important? I don't believe you can honestly speak for everyone here.
 * "We" as in you and me. We differ from each other in opinion cun 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (although not everyone included is as important to the narration, but that serves as a way to underline the realism of the TV show).
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're not here to paint a picture of the vast realism of the Sopranos compared to other television. We're here to state fact. Realism is not mentioned in the article, if it's going to be mentioned it should be in the manner stated above. The Filmaker 11:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This list is encyclopedic in nature as it states fact within a fictitious world in a correct and concrete manner.cun 11:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And? I agree, how is that refuting my statement? The Filmaker 15:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, then I don't understand your animosity towards the list.cun 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My "animosity" is that it is filled with information that is available elsewhere, information that is trivial, and serves only as an unneeded navigation point and offers and could not offer any meaningful information without having to rename and totally revitalize the article (at which point a completely different article should be started). The Filmaker 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is unneeded, though. You have some good points, but I think Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where "house-trainism" is the norm. Be bold and make unusual and original lists, although they never would have surfaced in other encyclopedias.cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you feel that it is unneeded, then how is it needed. At what point is there a need for this list. Not as a minor convenience. I'm saying, if this went away tomorrow would no one be able to find the relevant information that's stored on it. For that matter, is a reader actually looking for this article? Are they hoping when they are browsing the main Sopranos page that they can find a list of people who died? No, they are going to look for the character and the episode article. This list is only a minor convenience on those happen to find it when the majority of readers will be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles. The Filmaker 16:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per sumnjim and CyberGhostface. WP:NOT is repeatedly cited by the Filmaker but I don't believe any of the examples apply to this article. MrBlondNYC 06:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While not explicitly stated in the article example #1 is a good representation. Still, these are just examples and not specific criteria. The lines that more deal with the issue are "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Filmaker 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to be very specific to me. I don't think #1 (FAQ's) remotely applies and I disagree that the article represents Wikipedia as "an indiscriminate collection of items". May I make a suggestion? Could you please stop with the "No one has bothered to read any of my comments" and the "Has anyone been reading any of my comments?" It's a bit condescending to say people are not reading or comprehending your arguments. People are reading them and...disagreeing with them. Capice?
 * No, actually I won't. Since the majority of people either do not bother to recognize the reasons for deletion or they simply type the relatively same sentence as everyone else "The Sopranos is famous and the deaths are important". Since no one until cun above as bothered to refute my statements, I highly doubt that anyone has bothered to read them. The Filmaker 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Given that the Sopranos has reached such a level of fame then details concerning it become useful to people. People may often want to look up details of a series like this. This happens when a TV show goes from being popular to being regarded as creative and worthy of high esteem. Heliumballoon 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, you believe that this page would be useful for fans............ how? I understand that some fans might like to look it up. But at what point does this page become useful? The Filmaker 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For people interested in finding out details of the deaths in the series. And given how popular it is - very useful for them. To question usefulness here is very silly. Why is an article on mice useful? Only if you are interested in finding out mice. Why is an article about Bob the Builder useful? Because people want to know about it. If people deem something worthy of knowing about and reading about, then it is by definition useful. Heliumballoon 21:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no, that is not the definition of useful. The definition is "capable of being put to use" at what point can I put the information that Man #1 was killed in episode 13 by Christopher Molasanti, to use? No, this information is trivial. An article on mice can at least feature information on how mice behave and allow the reader to further understand how mice are born, live and die. This only features a list of deaths (information which appears in other, more suitable, places). Yes, there is line between interesting and useful. Purely interesting information is allowed on Wikipedia. However, purely interesting articles are not. Especially when the information is present useful articles. The Filmaker 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Very interesting and informing article about one of the most popular television shows in recent history. Salvag 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it's kinda fun. How is it useful information? The Filmaker 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Why mark for deletion now?  This article has been up for at least a few years (that I can recall) and contains important information on the program.  I find the timing of call for deletion . . . interesting.  With all of the hype over the show in recent weeks, someone has decided they don't particularly like a certain wikipedia article they found looking for information on the show?  All of the 'pros' listed above are valid points whereas the 'cons' seem to be nit-picky and overly concerned about narrow interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines.  Not trying to rake on anyone with my opinion, it's just how I see it. Danno49 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first, you haven't bothered to refute any of the deletion rationales other than that they are "nit-picky". Also, timing has nothing to do with it. I found the article and disagreed with it being on Wikipedia. The amount of time an article has been active as nothing to with deletion policy. The Filmaker 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons I love Wikipedia so much, is that it includes unusual lists like this. It would be a great shame if such original lists would be banished. cun 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These unusual lists might be fun, but Wikipedia is not simply supposed to be a fun source of information (that isn't to say that it's not supposed to be fun). This is why many editors have voted into policy the sections that this article violates. The Filmaker 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Has someone told you that Wikipedia is a nightmare to have a discussion in? ^^ I think the seriousness will damage Wikipedia and make it a greyer place, but that's another discussion. cun 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that the project must be stone-cold serious. But it is referred to as a project, as in something that we want to be a quality source of relevant information. This article does not represent that. The Filmaker 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fancruft. --Tone 14:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Ideally this would be part of The Sopranos main article but since including it there would make it very long, it is therefore reasonable to have a separate article. A1octopus 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, that doesn't answer to any of the reasons given for deletion? The Filmaker 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, in answer to your nom, deletion under WP:UNENC, is not an appropriate argument for this list because this is not an indiscrimate collection of information - the inclusion criteria for the list is very specific (characters who died in a particular television programme). I would argue also that a nomination under WP:TRIVIA is also not appropriate since The Sopranos is an important highly notable TV series (even here in the UK the airing of it's final episode got a mention on national news) and, since it is about gansters, a list of deaths of characters in episodes is in order. As I said it would ideally be in the show's main article, but as that would make the main article very long it is reasonable to have a separate one (in the same sense the discographies for major bands are usually separate articles). A1octopus 17:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I stated above the article contains information on the deaths of Silvio Dante and Big Pussy, but also on Man #1 and Boy on Bike, even animals. This is the trivial indiscriminate information that I speak of. The Filmaker 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you appear to be arguing for a cleanup rather than a delete, but that is something for the article's discussion page, not a deletion debate. A1octopus 07:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing just WP:NOT, I'm also arguing that the notable information is available in other articles, in more depth at that. This article serves only as a minor navigation tool. However, what reader is actually looking for this page? When a reader wishes to know the details of a character's death, do they look up Wikipedia hoping for a death list? No, they'll be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles. The Filmaker 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hate to say it, Filmaker, but the above argument sounds awfully similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A1octopus 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What?! Hello? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is for users who arguing an article should be deleted simply because they aren't interested or enjoy the content. In other words, it would be like me arguing that I don't like/care about The Sopranos or the deaths in The Sopranos. Neither of which is true. I've provided a policy page and given my critique of how I believe that the user would react (not in the sense of whether they care or not, but in the sense of where they would look for this information first). The Filmaker 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, I agree with the nom about this as an application of WP:NOT. I understand that this was an important and popular show and that a lot of people died in said show, but that doesn't mean that this list is Encyclopedia-worthy. As mentioned above, the potential exists for merging this information with all of the articles about every character who says more than five words in the series. I don't think that adding a list of deaths in any other mob movie, or important movie where people die would be any more relavent, and that's what I'm using to judge this.  b w o w e n  T / C  15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What part of WP:NOT do you feel that this fails? Let's go over all 10 items. 1. FAQ - It's not a FAQ. 2. Travel Guide - Obviously not a travel guide. 3. Memorial - Not a memorial 4. Instruction Manual - Not an instruction manual 5. Internet Guide - Not an internet guide. 6. Textbook and annotated texts - Not any of these either 7. Plot Summary - Not a plot summary 8. Lyrics Database - Nope 9. Statistics - Nope 10. News reports - Nope.   So yes, please, elighten all of use where you believe it fails WP:NOT -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You will find this disclaimer at the top of that list "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries...." Thus these are only examples that have been, through consensus, decided that are specifically not what Wikipedia repersents. These two sentences represent what the article violates "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The Filmaker 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so it says "..does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Where does it say "...automatically means it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" ? -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, it doesn't. To say ""Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true automatically means it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." is just ridiculous. What was your point here? The Filmaker 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - appears to be a rehashing of List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series. Others have pointed out the other policies and guidelines that this article fails, and here is an example of previous articles that were already deleted. I've seen some "it's useful to navigate". That's why you create a List of The Sopranos characters, and then conform to the out-of-universe guideline when writing that. Also, you have to look at what a death list entails. It's plot points, major ones and nothing else. This means you have created a list that is a derivative work of the original copyrighted source, thus it's a violation of copyrights for that show. There is no encyclopedic information to justify its existence.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: While I have very little knowledge of this TV show, I can definitely say that a list of deaths can fall under trivia. Alientraveller 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete because this does not qualify as encyclopedic content. There is no real-world context to be determined from this kind of list.  I would support a Death in The Sopranos prose article if there was media coverage about the level of violence in the series, and perhaps its controversy (if any was to be had), with specific cited examples from the series.  This is not the case here, and there is no connection between the bits of information other than an occurrence that is obviously commonplace in such a series.  Keeping this is bad precedent to create a list of jokes in comedy series or a list of characters who got betrayed in a soap opera.  Like I said before, death in The Sopranos would be much more suitable in prose, especially if it has ties to real-world context.  This list is pure trivia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above, also noting that similar lists about The Simpsons and Star Wars have existed and been deleted in the past. Gran2 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this information should be accessible from the list of Sopranos characters, no need for this extra list. Judgesurreal777 18:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I Disagree, as many of the characters listed in the article do not have (or need) their own article, hence why this is ever so importatnt to keep track of all deaths -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. What encyclopedic foundation does this have? As a directory to find out who was killed and when? As some nice fan information? As being useful to a reader? Right now, the list is a derivative work of the source material, thus a major copyright violation. Don't care how "useful" something is, when it violates copyrights, and cannot justify fair use, then it must go.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge OR Delete per above. &mdash; Deckiller 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft and material that lacks encyclopedic value. If information is already not mentioned on various other character/episode articles, then merge info that is noteworthy.  María ( habla  con migo ) 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm in love with this page, and any pages that provide comprehensive cross listing for works of art. Yes, the info here in available on other pages - 86 other pages of episode recaps.  But here, we have a body count.  It's the same for music used in the episode, or cast lists, or any other cross lists.  KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.128.93 (talk • contribs)
 * Last time I checked, "I'm in love with this page" didn't constitute a valid argument to keep an article. BTW, music used in an episode isn't encyclopedic either. What is also not a valid argument is "there are other articles like this as well". Please, point them out...we'll make our way over there as well.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I checked this. See Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Dream Team. --Tone 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete being indiscriminate information and not asserting out-of-universe notability. Like similar lists, this really isn't encyclopedic and indvidual deaths are better noted on individual characters' articles or entry in articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - great navigational tool, important to the show's themes. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See What Wikipedia is not, more specifically the "not a director" and "not an indiscriminate collection of information".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we covered this already? It does not fail WP:NOT, and it's not a directory either.  Directory is talking about like being a phone book. -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see, it lists every single death, no matter how minor...that's indiscriminate. It's a directory because it's only being used to look up who died, kind of like "looking up" a phone number. A "directory" isn't restricted to phone numbers, though that's the easiest example. It is, as was so eloquently put by others, "easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died". That isn't what Wikipedia is for. That makes the list a substitute for watching the show, and most importantly, as I've already stated a derivative work of the episodes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We might as well get rid of every one of these Click -- s u m n j i m  talk with me·changes 01:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some are of living people, which isn't the same as of fictional people. Something like "List of Oz deaths", I assume that is the TV show, should be deleted.   BIGNOLE    (Contact me)  01:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends, every article is subjective. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. The Filmaker 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If this gets deleted it is only fair all of these get deleted: I don't agree with it but it would be fair. MrBlondNYC 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, every article is subjective. I have not read these articles so I do not know for sure that they should most definitely be deleted. The Filmaker 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Deaths that in occur in the Sopranos are notable and as has been mentioned before there are many other TV show and movie death lists on Wikipedia Bamaman 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated above: Yes, they are notable and are mentioned in corresponding character and episode articles. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to see that other "death lists" is not a valid argument. The Filmaker 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As Erik has pointed out, "Death" in The Sopranos maybe notable, but a "list of deaths" is not.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then will the other "death lists" be deleted?Bamaman 03:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a link above to another AfD that has like 4 other similar lists up for deletion, and I listed a link to one that was deleted alread. I think others have listed links to lists that were deleted that carried the same information for other shows/films.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I don't think it should have its own article, but I DO think it should be merged inside The Sopranos main article. 76.197.222.162 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename I propose the article be renamed "Death on The Sopranos" and be expanded to more than a list.  Other aspects can be listed and I will volunteer to expand the article.--MistaTee 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been brought up before (incidentally by me). If you or someone else would like to write an article titled "Deaths in The Sopranos series" than that would be more than welcome. It would have contain commentary and reception, but only to the notable deaths. However, this new article is a complete 180 from this article. Thus, if you want to create a "Deaths in The Sopranos series", create new article. And get rid of this non-notable, poorly formatted list that would not be acceptable in said new article. The Filmaker 13:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. The JPS talk to me  17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I entirely disagree with The Filmaker's assertion that "When a reader wishes to know the details of a character's death...they'll be looking for the corresponding character and episode articles." I have consulted this list numerous times, and I find it very useful, in the sense that any information about a fictional world can be "useful." If, for example, I want to determine the order of deaths on the show, I can consult this list, rather than wading through numerous episode-specific articles. Furthermore, The Filmaker has repeatedly said that he objects to the inclusion of "minor" deaths. I would argue, first, that no death is "minor," not even on TV. And, second, who decides which deaths are major and which are minor? The inclusion of statistics by season is useful in understanding the overall arc and direction of the show. For example, Season 4, considered the best by many fans, had the fewest deaths. This is useful information, no more or less useful than any other information about The Sopranos. I don't understand the distinction being made between "interesting" and "useful" in this case. How is a recap of the episodes "useful" but a list of the deaths only "interesting"? You could make the argument that the individual character articles are also unnecessary, since all of the relevant information is included in the episode articles. Why have an article about Christopher Moltisanti when all of the character's development, personality, characteristics, and history occur in episodes of the show? Anyone interested in this character's history needs only to read the articles about the episodes in which he appeared. An article about the specific character is nothing more than an extraneous "navigational tool," or, at best, a digest of information that is all included in other articles. Seriously. I don't understand the hard-on you have for deleting this article. Is there a shortage of space on the internet? Is Wikipedia about to reach its limit? Obviously, some people find this article useful (myself included). Why do you want to take that away from us? Mookabear 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between having an article on an episode recap and having an encyclopedic article on an episode. This is a good example of an encyclopedic article on an episode. Notice the short plot description, and abundant real world content. This is a good example of what not to do. The same goes for characters. This is a good example of what a fictional character page should look like. This is a good example of what one should not look like. It has no relevance to "usefulness" (that isn't a valid argument for keeping something) or being "interesting". It's about encyclopedic content and notability, both of which this article lacks.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is completely awesome. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid reason for keeping an article. WP:ILIKEIT. The Filmaker 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By that same token all the "Delete as fancruft" argumments are invalid per WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "it should be remembered that Fancruft and Listcruft are only essays and so have no weight when it comes to deletion" MrBlondNYC 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an essay as well. Essays do hold some weight in the deletion process, however they are not policy. The Filmaker 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. If deaths are significant events on The Sopranos, then this data should be merged into The Sopranos timeline (unfortunately the timeline is currently very wordy (proseliney?), so it would be obscured). If The Sopranos is ultimately a show about killing people in the same way that House is a show about diagnosing illnesses, then the data should be merged into two locations:
 * The episode list, as it is for House.
 * The episode infoboxes, as it can be for House.
 * Alternately, the data could be combined with a chronology of all characters, showing their first appearance and departure for any means on a timeline (cf Template:Doctorwhocompanions). Vagary 23:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The deaths of the characters are not nearly as relevant to the show as diagnoses are to House. The Filmaker 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Says who? You? -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 12:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Who says not? You? The entire premise of House is built around diagnosing people. The premise of The Sopranos is built around the happenings of Tony Soprano which happens to contain deaths occasionally. The deaths are only notable because they are often of main characters that have been on the show for years and for their realism. Still, it's hard to say or give a reasonable explanation as to why the deaths in The Sopranos are a relevant as diagnoses in House. The Filmaker 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. They are still somewhat relevant. Is there objection to the deaths being merged into one of the resources I mentioned in a prominent way? Vagary 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep — This is exactly the type of article we should be encouraging users to create. It's well sourced (to the primary source -- the episode -- which is a perfectly allowed source), it's presented neatly (tabulated) and deaths are a notable part of The Sopranos -- a highly notable television, thus it stands that this type of information would be of interest to our readers. A merge would be inappropriate (per WP:SS), and the list meets the criteria set in WP:LIST). Matthew 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment completely ignores all of the original a subsequent reasons for deletion. The Filmaker 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What reasons for deletion? I can't see any other than "I don't like it". Matthew 20:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of out of universe content. No "new" content to establish that his isn't simply some derivative work of the copyrighted source material. It's a list of plot points. To name 3. Bignole 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Still not seeing a valid reason to delete, other than "I don't like it, so here's some silly reason I invented." Matthew 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, you're a silly person (being jovial). Last time I checked WP:WAF wasn't that silly. Nor was WP:NOT, and I believe derivative works aren't considered too silly in a court of law (which, btw, Wikipedia is not above). So, what's silly is the fact that you call any opposing argument silly. Silly Rabbit, that retort is for kids. Bignole 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Give me a non-silly reason (supported by policy) and I'll reconsider my keep. I don't think you can provide such a thing. Oh, you should probably read derivative work ← lolipops. Matthew 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT isn't policy? The Filmaker 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about WP:NOT (which supports keeping the article)? I can't for the life of me think of anything there it would fail. Matthew 21:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated above, WP:NOT and WP:NOT. The Filmaker 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which don't, of course, support you. Matthew 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think US laws supercede policy. Why does this constitute a copyright infringement, I guess you missed all that stuff at the top. What is this article? It's a list of plot events, those plot events are under the sole rights of HBO (or whoever owns the series). If they wish, they could make Wikipedia remove this list, because there is nothing on this page that says it is being used in an encyclopedic manner. There is no real world content that justifies the use of this copyrighted material. Read this, you can't even use a copyrighted character in a story that has nothing to do with the original material. What you are doing here is making a page that is nothing but a cumulative work of major and minor plot events. What the courts look at are: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and, 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work Guest what, the "potential market" for the show decreases because you are supplying potential customers with a list of every death in the series, for free mind you, and are not providing any critical commentary on that (Wiki even has its own criteria for that). If I were to read this page, it would ruin most of the show for me, because it reveals all the major plot events. I know they are major because any time someone says the deaths are not relevant, people start speaking out that they are. Also, part of what falls under the law: "Your work may be using an element from another work that is not copyrightable, like a story line.." Now, this area isn't as concrete a definition, but this is why Wikipedia created it's own fair use criteria, so pages would not fall on the line. Let's look at the article. What's on this page? Storylines. The story line of Emil Kolar's death at the hands of Christopher Moltisanti, or the 10 other story lines in that first season. This page doesn't even take the time to name the actors. It's entirely in-universe. If you want some in-universe, list of deaths, with no regard for third party sources, go to Sopranos Wikia (if there is one, create it if there isn't). Right now, the page is a walking timebomb of copyrighted material. I got who gets killed, who kills who, how they died, what episode it happened in. Could you call this anything other than a derivative work of the show? It doesn't have to be a word for word translation to be a derivative work, and if you do not have permission to create a derivative work then you are infringing on the copyrights of that studio. Bignole 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well (clearly) you don't understand copyright. A definition for you "Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation." oh, but there's more: "Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work."
 * Now, feel free to give me a non-"I don't like this article so here's some BS I made up." argument, actually supported by policy. As it stands the closing admin would be well correct to close this as keep, as quite frankly the deletes haven't given any rationale to delete with any substance. Matthew 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. If killing people is the key element in the series, maybe you can incorporate it into the episode list. Something similar is done at Lost episodes, where it is stated whose are the flashbaks. Just an option, I don't follow the series. --Tone 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been suggested before. However, the deaths are not as relevant as the flashbacks are to Lost. The deaths are important in the long run of things on the Sopranos, however the flashbacks are a "key element" to the series of Lost. The Filmaker 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment on Keep votes above I'd like any administrator who comes by attempting to understand the discussion that is taking place, to keep in mind that these Afds are not a majority vote (although the Delete votes are not far behind), you may notice that the majority Keep votes are simply users stating that they either just plain like the article (WP:ILIKEIT), or simply state that "The Sopranos TV series is notable and the deaths in the series are important to the plot). Both of these statements, and any other Keep votes for that matter, have been refuted by myself and Bignole numerous times. Few of them have bothered to try to refute those statements (or even reply at all for that matter). At this point, I'd like to ask the administrator that is reading this Afd to carefully look at each comment and disregard any of the comments that are either unfounded or have been refuted. Most, if not all, of the above, have been. The Filmaker 14:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are making the case that the deaths in the Sopranos are not an integral part of the series, such as flash backs in Lost or a diagnosis in House, many of the keep comments have refuted your points very well.Bamaman 14:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And we have refuted the points made by them. In the end, either I or Bignole have refuted most, if not all, of the comments made by the keep votes. For one thing, every single episode of House or Lost respectively features a diagnosis and a flashback. The entire format behind Lost is based around the flashbacks. House's entire premise is centered around the Department of Diagnostic Medcine. The Sopranos however is not a show about death or killing people. Yes, it is an element of the show, and it does occur often, but the does every week begin with an episode where Tony is wondering "Well, who am I gonna kill this week?". The Filmaker 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment on the comment The article was nominated for deletion per WP:NOT, however, that reason is invalid because it lists EVERY death in the series. If some deaths were included, and some left out, that would make the list indiscriminate, however, since ALL deaths are accounted for, then this list is discriminate, and therefore, the nomination is invalid.  If you also take into account a point brought up post-nomination, that wikipedia is not a directory, this too, is invalid, as this list is, in no way, trying to act as a directory.  A directory, for lack of a better word, is like a telephone book.  You look up something you need, and it tells you where to get the information.  (ie:  go to THIS location to find what you are looking for).  This list has what you are looking for inside the same article, it is not telling you to go anywhere else to find the information.  Of course, there are links to the episode where they died, but the list does not say "here is the episode, to find out who died, click here to find out".  Because of this reasoning, that, too, is an invalid reason to delete.  EVERY single list on Wikipedia, is going to have a blue link to somewhere else.  That does not mean it is acting like a directory.  True, there are people using WP:ILIKEIT, but there are also people using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well. The fact of the matter is simply, that this list does not fail WP:NOT, and no other policy that I can find.  To delete this list would be absurd.  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, with WP:NOT. You've got it flipped. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, thus does not allow ALL information. The list, as you yourself stated, lists EVERY single death on the series (including animals and deaths are not even chronicled in the series). If we were to only keep the notable deaths, than the list would be "discriminate". As for WP:NOT: "It's a directory because it's only being used to look up who died, kind of like "looking up" a phone number. A "directory" isn't restricted to phone numbers, though that's the easiest example. It is, as was so eloquently put by others, "easier to access information on specifically how and why the characters died". That isn't what Wikipedia is for. That makes the list a substitute for watching the show, and most importantly, as I've already stated a derivative work of the episodes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"
 * And all of the refutes have been refuted? The Filmaker 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose a middle ground. How about we rename the article to "List of notable deaths in The Sopranos" and clean up all the non-notable deaths (FYI Pie-O-Mie's death, though an animal is very notable).  With regards to WP:NOT, you fail to see my point.  A directory is something that directs you to a different source for information.  The premise of this list is not to direct you elsewhere, as the information is already contained in the list.  As I said before, of course it is going to link you to the actual episode list, however every list in Wikipedia is going to have blue links to other sources.  A list without blue links would just look funny.  If we can agree on this, I think we can move ahead and make everyone happy -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The compromise would make, how should I put it, happier' than I am right now. It would make the article a little more decent. However, we can't ignore Bignole's prime rationale for deletion. The list is only a replacement for major events in the plot. Thus can still fall under WP:NOT this time under the Plot summary example: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." If the article were to offer commentary and reception (as I stated above) than it would not be focused solely as a summary of the work's plot. However, than the article would no longer be a list. It would have to be renamed "Notable deaths in The Sopranos series", at which point people would realize that the list is unneeded and we need only discuss notable deaths such Big Pussy or Phil Leotardo. At this point, the new article is completely from the current article. Therefore, if a user wishes too, the new article should simply be created. The Filmaker 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The list is not a replacement of major events, it's a guide to the major events. It gives just the right amount of information, though the wording needs a copyedit. It is not a copyvio--they are he barest summary. Most lists are intended to be complete--keeping track of the deaths is not very useful if it doesn't keep track of all the deaths. The example used by NOT for indiscriminate  would seem to condemn not this, but the articles on the episodes, which are generally 80%-90% plot summary.   DGG 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be all in-depth to infringe on the rights. If I have a story that uses the character of Tony Soprano, that's an infringement on the rights of HBO. Having a list that does nothing but state plot elements infringes on the rights, because there is nothing else, outside the fictional element of the show, on this page. This is a list of fictional characters, their deaths, by who's hands, and in what episode. Not only are there no real world content, but it treats every like it really happened. Bignole 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh be quiet! As I've explained to you above "Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation." oh, but there's more: "Copyright law covers only the form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work." -- learn to grasp this, immediatley. Matthew 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First Matthew, you are becoming quite rude with people, you should probably curb that, and I don't need your lack of understanding of US laws to tell me otherwise. If you think that you can copy concepts and facts without proof that it is your original work, you have a lot to learn. If I created some 7ft hair creature, that carried a weapon, only talked in animal grunts and basically looked like Chewbacca in every way that I didn't already mention, you had better believe I'd find a lawsuit in my mailbox. Because Chewbacca is a concept; he's a character on a copyrighted piece of work, just like all those in that list on this page. If someone can get sued, and lose the lawsuit, over putting Seinfeld quotes in a book, you can believe that more important things to a series like plot elements. Try this, go write a book that does nothing but list every major and minor storyline in a plot and see if you don't have a lawsuit. It's infringement because those are not just "concepts" they are the actual storylines from the series. You cannot publish a set of storylines, with not encyclopedic commentary, without permission from the owner. I feel I should explain this better, when it says "not intended for an actual idea, concepts, facts, etc", it is referring to fact that you can not copyright the "fact" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and you cannot copyright the "fact" that there is gravity acting on the Earth. Meaning, someone cannot "copyright" a filming style, the way they place a camera in a shot, etc. You cannot copyright the fact that Tony Soprano is a person. But the stories are copyrighted, as are the characters in them. If it was as simple as "John killed Bob in "Pilot", that's not copyrighted. But this list lays out the details, which are apart of that show, and since it's laid out in a manner that lists every occurance of a death, that is what makes it an infringement on the copyrights. If you were writing a paragraph about a Sopranos episode, and you need to describe the scene to illustrate your point, then that is not a violation. That isn't what this list is doing. This list is nothing but a huge compilation of episode events, in detail. Like "Shot in the head. Killed during Christopher's drunk fury for not listening to his problems.". You're doing nothing but revealing events in a plot. Bignole 22:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you believe the page violates copyright, please nominate it for a violation check on WP:CV. A deletion debate is not the proper place to debate this. Vagary 01:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't aware that we had that. It's already backlogged, so I'll wait till after the AfD is closed. There is no point in bringing it there if the AfD closes in favor of deletion. If not, I'll go there and see if others agree on its infringement status. Bignole 16:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, this Afd was not originally started over the fact that the List violates copyright. However, true it may be. The Filmaker 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Section break

 * I've enjoyed this show since day one, so my initial impression of this article is that it's a fascinating fan resource and an enjoyable read. Unfortunately, my consigliere has pointed out to me that this is Wikipedia, not a Sopranos wiki.  The question that has to be asked is:  "Is this specific topic of sufficient notability to be encyclopedic?"  Now before you fly off the handle, I am not saying that The Sopranos is an unnotable topic, or even that deaths on the Sopranos is an unnotable topic.  The only relevant question before us is:  "Does a topical concordance of deaths throughout the series meet standards for inclusion on Wikipedia?"  This article's usefulness is irrelevant, its novelty is irrelevant, its enjoyability is irrelevant, and its cherished place in the hearts of fanboys and fangirls is irrelevant.  Wikipedia is a harsh mistress which demands that we set aside our emotional attachments for the sake of being as objective, detached and fair-minded as possible.  Sorry folks, but listcruft is bad for our thing.  Perhaps this list can find a good home on a fan-wiki, but as far as its appropriateness for Wikipedia, I have to say:  Whack. Groupthink 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, I love this comment. You may be right. I have at least copied the content, so it won't dissappear with a deletion of this article. cun 17:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a television show. It is not real life. Therefore the amount of miscellaneous information about it that is encyclopedia is very limited. Herostratus 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a television show is not a valid reason to delete. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Because it's a television show, only a limited amount of miscellaneous information about it will be encyclopedic is SO a valid reason to delete. Groupthink 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Indeed it is. I presume this AfD will be cited in future cases so it is important to make a precise decision on the case. One more thing. All the info from the list should be covered in the episode articles and that is enough. Too many redundant lists on WP, we should have stronger policy. --Tone 08:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect or Merge into an Episode list. Episode lists are an estblished precedent. Permitting one death list means there will soon be death lists for every action-oriented film or television series. And actor. Bleh. Trust me: Do you really want to know the names of every two-bit extra mutilated by Bolo Yeung?--Mike18xx 02:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep Cleary stated why above 69.218.8.5 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you can clearly state why, your comment is invalid. I can just as easily say "Clearly stated why not above." The Filmaker 04:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You did'nt say anything when a user in favor of deleting said "per above"69.218.8.5 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I assumed that they agreed with the many objections to the article. However, I have no clue what objection you have, as the majority, if not all, of the keep votes points have been refuted. Or did you not bother to read any of the replies to the votes? The Filmaker 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Refuted" is a very strong word. This debate could probably serve to be summarized - I'll put out a call for someone neutral to do it. Vagary 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They most certainly have not been refuted in my view. I have found the delete areguments to have been rebuffed in this disscusion69.218.8.5 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly provide an example? Even if you could, I doubt that is the only arguement that was made for deletion. The Filmaker 21:36, 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 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is a television show or that it is a death on television has nothing to do with any of the objections to the article remaining. In other words, it is not "a problem". The problem is that it is an indiscriminate collection of information which in turn violates copyright and also violates the directory policy. The information is present elsewhere in more accessible places (and where a reader would most likely look) and the only real use for the article is as a minor convenience as a navigation tool. The Filmaker 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As you agreed above, copyright violation is not relevant to this debate. It is a red herring: please stop bringing it up. Vagary 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Television shows (and anything else for that matter) should be entitled to separate articles about elements related to the subject that are notable.  As long as it's properly maintained, I believe that this page should be kept just as much as List of crossovers on Lost.  --  Wikipedical 00:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Being associated with something doesn't entitle you to notability. Bignole 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and while I have my doubts as to whether or not that page is too trivial to be included on Wikipedia. I will mention that the Crossover article is slightly more useful as the crossovers are not always (and should not always be) explicitly stated as in the context of character and episodes often times they are very trivial. However, in the larger scheme of things, they can prove to be notable. The notable deaths on The Sopranos will always be explicitly stated in the episode and character articles. The Filmaker 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Wikipedica1. Groupthink 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true as well. The Filmaker 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * keep - I already read this article 2 weeks ago. Any article that generates this much discussion on both sides of the fence probably should be kept, since there is obviously enough interest for the article to be here. Wikipedia's for the readers, after all, not for the editors or the rules lawyers. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Wikipedia has something approaching 60GB of Simpsons cruft, which kinda outweighs any rational argument anyone could ever put towards anything. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a supporting argument for deleting 60GB of Simpsons cruft? ;) Groupthink 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm resigned to the continued existence of 60GB of Simpsonscruft. Wikipedia is, after all, created and run by primates, many of whom watch the Simpsons. However, a large number of primates also watch the Sopranos, which was popular too; the show is now over, so there should be no more Sopranoscruft created. As for this article, I personally read it 2 weeks ago, and as I think the true test of keeping cruft (e.g. Simpsons) is whether a large number of Wikipedia readers may find it useful, I therefore think this article should be kept. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Generating a lot of attention doesn't mean it's notable, it means that a large portion of the fanbase is on here hoping to keep it. Bignole 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And the same can be said for 60GB of Simpsonscruft. I'd like to see someone try to AfD an article like Disco Stu or Duff Beer (The Simpsons) on the grounds that they are non-notable and lack secondary sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, both of those should be merged. Disco Stu should be in a "List of The Simpsons characters" page, as he's kind of minor. Duff Beer should be merged with the main article, as it contains some relevant information, especially the bit about people actually creating it in the '90s. Bignole 03:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha! Go ahead and try! You have my blessing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Throw up the proposed mergers. You'll have my vote. Bignole 03:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No no, you first. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a place for a debate. You brought it up. What you are doing is equivalent to dumping information into Wikipedia and expecting others to source it for you. You think they should be merged, propose it. You think they should be AfD'd, then propose it. Stop doing the "well this exists" game. I'm not your parent, you can propose articles for deletion or merger on your own. Frankly. I think both of those articles have a better chance of actually expanding into sensible encyclopedic articles. They probably need to be merged until that actually can happen, but they have a better potential for it than this page, which has about a snow ball's chance in hell of being encyclopedic. Proposals have been made about how info from here could be use to make an encyclopedic entry. I frankly think that a "Death in The Sopronos" article is best served as a section on the main article's page. Bignole 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please try to keep a cool head. I personally have a "live and let live" philosophy regarding most articles. I have also never dumped information into Wikipedia expecting others to source it; I suspect a "list of deaths" isn't going to come from secondary sources anyway. And you did propose deleting or merging those Simpsons articles, not me. Most importantly, when it comes to cruft, I generally believe in keeping it if it's not vanispam, been well-written, and something useful to a large number of readers. This doesn't follow the hard-and-fast rules, I know; but I believe in using the rules as guidelines and letting common sense, a desire to serve the average reader, and an understanding of the spirit of Wikipedia rule the day. Especially when it comes to AfDs that generate this much discussion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, by that reasoning I could have a List of measurements for my toe nail, and is enough people want to read about it, then that's ok. I go to college, being in college is a great achievement, thus I could be considered notable, and by association so could my toe nails. I don't think so. Random trivia is not notable. Who killed who is anything is not notable. The fact that someone wants to read about it doesn't change it's notability. 10 million people may want to read about my toe nails. My toe nails wouldn't be notable, but the fact that 10 million people wanting to read about them would be, luckily that isn't the case. The way death is portrayed in the Sopranos could be notable, but not a list of every minor character that died. Work it up in a List of characters article, and just have the actor's name end with this last appearance. Bignole 15:03, 19 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.