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. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of funerals[edit]

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

Cannot make heads or tails of what this list accomplishes or why it's necessary. Notability of most of these entries are questionable, remaining ones may be better served as a category. PROD removed without comment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ways in which lists are superior to categories are detailed at WP:AOAL. There are entire books devoted to the topic such as Funerals of the Famous and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Use of prod in such cases seems disruptive as the page is well-developed by numerous editors and the prod process is only supposed to be used in uncontroversial cases. Andrew D. (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the prod would be controversial, thus my usage of it. I am not basing my deletion rationale on the notability of the topic (although a funeral industry publication is probably not the best way to judge notability of a list of funerals in any regard), but rather that the list form does not lend itself to the topic nor is the article able to be limited to truly notable funerals. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find more coverage of funerals. For example, this source discusses notable Tudor funerals such as those of Queen Elizabeth and Sir Philip Sidney, while this one discusses major funerals of later periods. Per WP:CLN, structural objections to the list format are not policy and so should never be used as the basis for a deletion nomination. Andrew D. (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a structural objection, but an objection based on the fact that this isn't really a good way to handle the topic. An article about state funerals is appropriate. An article about an individual funeral may be appropriate. A random list with no real benefit for readers or any sort of standard in place for inclusion or even notability of the individual topics is where the objection lies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable entries are better served by a list than a category, as dates, attendances etc can be given. Siuenti (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The inclusion criteria need tightening up. The table could do with a bit more formatting, making it sortable. Martin451 23:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per above !votes. In this case, a list is more appropriate for listing funerals than a category. Esquivalience ^t 02:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:LISTN and WP:NLIST, and also qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Funerals by person. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Thargor Orlando's comments, it is difficult to see what criteria for inclusion have been, or should be applied. Worldwide and throughout history, notable funerals would be an enormous list. If limited by historical period or geographical location or 'area of notability, I could see value. As presently constituted, the list appears random. Would a list of funerals that have their OWN article be a constructive interim measure? Pincrete (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Funeral of Thatcher had an estimated 4.5 million viewing on TV, with about 1 million watching via iPlayer, I cannot see worldwide figures. The funeral of Bal_Thackeray had 1-2 million in attendance, and 15 million watching on TV. The first has its own article, the second was deleted AfD. The second is in this article, the first is not. So I personally do not think having its own article is suitable inclusion criteria. Martin451 00:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be useful to move this to a slightly more descriptive name, like List of largest funerals. "Largest" is defined within the current article by "based on both the number of attendants and estimated television audience". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the last suggestion (or "large"). Purge of any below 10,000 attenders. For pre-TV items N/a is unsatisfactory: is it not available or not applicable. I would suggest the column should say "no TV". This probably applies to Jinnah, as I doubt there was much TV in Pakistan at his death. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2015 (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.