Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in 2004

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 keep the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2004

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is merely a list of 12 links to deaths in each month. Those links can be put under the year article 2004. If necessary, this page should redirect to the "Deaths" section 2004#Deaths, similar to the redirect from Deaths in 1996 to 1996#Deaths. Quest for Truth (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also just lists of deaths in each month:

Strong keep. These pages provide access and a point of entry to lists of deaths of thousands of notable people. Recent deaths is one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia; the above pages follow on chronologically from that page. These pages continue to be visited long after the year has ended. Deaths in 2011 is still visited by over 600 people every day. Deaths in 20nn has a strong history in Wikipedia. The nomination does not suggest any policy or guideline breached by these lists. WWGB (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The attached talk pages contain very important precedents, consensus and decisions concerning the Deaths in 20nn suite of articles, which will be lost if the article pages are deleted. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. In addition to what's stated above, the Deaths pages serve an encyclopedic purpose by assisting researchers seeking, for whatever legitimate reason, only to find out who died in a particular time period. The Deaths pages also serve as extremely convenient indices of articles and references related to each other by temporal proximity of subject death. Since they are fairly long, subsuming them under the year articles would result in overly long year articles, and the year articles would end up containing lists. While list articles such as the Deaths ones do not violate any policy, including very long lists in another article, such as a year article, would violate policy. Guyovski (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For readers looking for links to deaths in each month such as Deaths in January 2004, these links can be put under 2004#Deaths (Other years can be treated similarly). It is really pointless to have an article to hold just 12 links of each month's deaths. What I am suggesting is by making 2004 contain links to Deaths in each month 2004. If we expect a high traffic to "Deaths in 20nn", it can redirect to "20nn#Deaths" and users can access the information equally well.--Quest for Truth (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a content page for deaths in each year. Lugnuts (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate into decadal articles, such as 2000s (deaths), or better yet, the monthly lists can be merged in a Navbox. The stubby section layout badly contradicts WP:BODY, so I'm going to address that concern. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your creation of {{Navbox deaths}} and your edits in the pages that makes it look much better now. It was so awkward to have 12 sections with each having only a link to each month. --Quest for Truth (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like these pages are just being used as a category (by listing other articles within its scope). Why don't we use a category instead? Adding the links to the year (e.g. 2004) would also appear to be very helpful, and extremely relevant to the 2004 article. If we do that, then Deaths in 2004 would be entirely redundant, and can become a redirect. So, the question seems to be: why shouldn't we list these articles in the most obvious place, and why shouldn't we use a category to categorize articles? That seems to be the most eloquent solution, providing a standard and useful scheme for readers to find this content. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you might think lists and categories would be redundant to each other, but WP policy is that they are complementary to each other (Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). Anarchangel (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that if we create a category, and we add these links to the year article (e.g. 2004), then the list (Deaths in 2004) would become redundant. That's because we would have the information in two places (including one article), as well as a redirect, which would allow the information to be found very easily. I'm not sure why these links aren't already included in the year article (what could be more relevant but a list of notable events specific to that year), and that would eliminate the need for this list. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. For attribution reasons, these pages cannot be deleted, as they (or at least the ones I checked) contain the entire early history of the monthly pages. The latter are archived versions of the content of the year pages at a specific date (+later additions). --Hegvald (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they can. We do that all the time, where a page's content was copied or transcluded into another. The attribution is still there, just not visible to regular editors. If it's a serious problem, we always have methods of merging histories. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History merging is hardly possible with these pages, considering the overlap that exists between adjacent months and even years. But you are welcome to ask someone who usually does that sort of thing to get a second and better informed opinion. And deleting these pages is just making things unnecessarily complicated both for attribution and any other historical purposes (such as checking for removed entries). If they are really felt to be redundant, the simple and obvious solution is to redirect them to some central page and make a note on relevant talk pages about how to find the page histories. --Hegvald (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I'm not sure this really qualifies for a speedy keep, but the nomination reason advanced is not policy based in any way. A list-of-lists is a perfectly acceptable way of organizing information, and the fact that these may substantially overlap with categories is no reason to remove the alternate navigation methods, per WP:CLN. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a reasonable link. --Artene50 (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A list of lists is a perfectly acceptable article, and keeping these pages would be much easier than any complex history merges needed for attribution reasons. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 03:04, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
Strong keep as it fully lists of people who died. Adjkasi (discuss me) 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read any of the above lists, you will find people who died are listed in the monthly articles but not those yearly articles. --Quest for Truth (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion We already have Category:2004_deaths. I'm not sure how much information is added by having the same information in articles. Categories are easier to maintain. If we want we can further divide the categories into subcategories by month. i.e. Deaths_in_January_2004 - The Determinator p t c 01:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.