Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people buried at sea


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

List of people buried at sea

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Category:Burials at sea is sufficient, an article based list is unmaintainable. RadioFan (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The list in Burial at sea has grown to the point of being unwieldy -- about fifty names and half the article. Moving the list to a separate page, leaving only a few, very notable names on the main page, is a logical step.  It is certainly no less maintainable as a separate article than it would be if it continued to dominate the main article. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  15:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete subject is far far too wide ranging to be of any use as a list article per WP:SALAT. Will either continue to be a tiny subset or will grow to extreme proportions. Polargeo (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but then what happens to the main article? In effect, you're condemning the main article to being a tail to the list. Also, I read WP:SALAT to support this case -- if you can have a list of atheists or a list of Albanians (both of which SALAT commends), why not a list of people buried at sea? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  16:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can restrict the list in any way then it may have some utility but as it stands it is an inappropriate criteria for a list. Simply saying it has to be split from a main article is nonsense, the main article should also not have an inappropriate list within it. Also arguments of Other stuff exists are not appropriate, those articles may also be eligible for deletion, but that is a separate issue. Polargeo (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but "nonsense" is on the bare edge of civility, perhaps a little past it.
 * I certainly agree that it's foolish to have a long list either place -- beyond a certain point it loses utility. Certainly for the purposes of the article, a few very notable examples should suffice. So you're suggesting that I just gird up my loins for battle and keep the list in the article at more or less its current length (that is, the length to which I reduced it after creating the separate list)? I was trying to avoid that, but perhaps I shouldn't.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep (see below). It's not exactly a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument if the examples are taken straight from the guidelines' page, is it? List of atheists is given as an example of how selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles. Every single entry on List of people buried at sea has an article and the topic of sea burials seems to be sufficiently notable to justify the existence of the list. — Rankiri (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On closer examination, most of the listed articles don't mention any relevant details that could justify their inclusion in the list. of those few which do, most refer to the scattering of the ashes and aren't generally accompanied by any citations. — Rankiri (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the list will not be filled up with random people nobody has heard of it, having an article is almost always a pre-requisite for appearing on a list like this.--Patton123 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete a list of one person is ridiculous; I personally do not equate scattering ashes at sea with burial at sea, as (it seems) do most governments who regulate it. Furthermore, for a list list to be worth compilation, surely the persons should be noteable primarily for the circumstances of their burial - such as a noteable aquaphobe. RayBarker (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What I mean is, for a list such as this, the burial itself must be notable. As I see several people arguing that a list of notable persons burial location is reasonable, consider this: Producing a complete (i.e. encyclopedic) list of notable persons who were buried at sea is as reasonable as producing a list of notable persons who were buried in a grave. Every shipwreck is considered a burial at sea, and this list would potentially have thousands of entries. As I can't think of a specific case of burial at sea to illustrate my point, here is comparison of two land-based burials: Andrew Carnegie was famous for several things, and his burial in a grave was not one of these things. Conversely, Horatio_Nelson died at sea, but despite naval custom he was notably buried in a tomb at St Paul's Cathedral. If this list is to exist, the circumstances of burial itself should be the notable factor. RayBarker (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * anyway, this list is redundant as there is already a Category:Burials_at_sea RayBarker (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It needs better sourcing, but it's a legitimate spinoff from burial at sea. Such a list should, of course, be confined to notable people, but I don't know of anyone who would be notable primarily for the circumstances of their burial.  If there were one, somebody would probably argue that their article should be deleted under  WP:ONEEVENT.   Mandsford (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a clear difference between a proper burial at sea (the full body being deposited below the waves) and the scattering of cremated ashes across the waters. The lack of references doesn't help. Warrah (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep limited just as Warrah says, to those actually buried at sea.   There will not be a great many on the notable people at Wikipedia  for  whom that can be documented.  DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Without evidence this is a very speculative keep vote. Why will there not be many? By what source? Polargeo (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "By what source" is the answer to your question. I agree with DGG that the list should be limited to notable persons for whom there is a source that states that they were buried at sea.  Generally, the details of a person's burial are not discussed beyond a mention of where their grave may be found.  Evidently, you have a source that shows that there have been many people who have been buried at sea, and that even a list of notable persons would "grow to extreme proportions".  Such a source would make a good reference for this article.  Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I needed a source to state the obvious but okay over 6000 US service personel were buried at sea during WWII alone according to this source. Polargeo (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC) There are currently 64 people in Category:Burials_at_sea but this is likely to be only a very small fraction of notable individuals burried at sea therefore appropiate for a category but not really for a list article. Polargeo (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only say that war presents unusual circumstances that are not encountered in peacetime, and that there were reasons other than personal choice for those 6,000 burials at sea. There were more than 9,000 US service personnel who were buried at Normandy rather then being sent home.  Up to and including the Second World War, burials at sea or on foreign soil were a matter of necessity rather than a matter of the decedent's wishes or the family's preferences.  Mandsford (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete too broad in scope. Dlabtot (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not inheritantly non-notable and kind of interesting. As said before, it should however be confined to notable people actually buried a sea, cremation doesn't count.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 20:41, 15 February 2010 (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.