Requests for Comment/Deleting pages about deaths

I'm sorry for making another RfC in such a short time period but this is one I have considered recently. I suggest that we delete the articles about deaths, since while it is nice to pay respects to the dead, Qualitipedia is not an obituary and such pages do not provide any encyclopedic value to these wikis. They would be more fitting on Depressing Deaths Wiki, so even though that wiki is outside our jurisdiction, articles about deaths belong there. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit: There is also something else about this that I would like to address and that is the fact that, unfortunately, death is inevitable, and having a page about every single dead person involved in media would clog up the wikis and would be too much for Miraheze's servers to handle. If we don't delete all of them, we can at least delete pages about deaths due to natural causes and keep pages about artificial deaths (murder, overdose, suicide, etc.) Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As proposer. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) yeah, qualitipedia is not an obituary, yet at least speaking for the good celebrities, their death count for the wikis as a terrible (or better term, lamentable) moment and that's why they're included, not because we want to make the wikis an obituary. that's where i think your argument kinda falls apart because the wikis specifically allow for these pages under a reason which i explained. i don't see why they should be excluded if between consumers they lament the death so much that it leaves a mark. also i DO think the articles add a "encyclopedic value" to the wikis as they EXPLAIN the context of the deceased person in question. wikipedia does the same. that said, i don't think we should be deleting articles because they lack "encyclopedic value" in qualitipedia of all things, as i'd argue qualitipedia's focus isn't to be encyclopedic. the argument as a whole doesn't make much sense to me, though i'd like to be enlightened. EDIT: adressing bluba's addition to the RfC. nobody in this wiki has ever thought of adding EVERY SINGLE PERSON with an influence on media that has died. at least on an ideal scenario, we'd be keeping only those that had an actual mark on the media and media's followers. now that i see the "Miraheze's servers" argument again i have no other option than to take it seriously: this argument is the poorest of the bunch and, very honestly and frankly speaking, sounds like you invented it on a rush. (correct me if i'm wrong which i doubt) miraheze won't lag when having a ton of pages. this scenario is unrealistic because miraheze already hosts A LOT of wikis, and per consequence, MORE LOTS of pages. even taking away all of miraheze's non-qualitipedia wikis, i can bet that on a single wiki, of all its pages, the percentage about pages of death of people is still low enough to be considered trivial to adress. Yonydesk (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They don't really, because they do not list good and bad qualities and seem to be more memorial pages than anything explaining the quality of something related to media. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * they do really, because is it really necessary for them to have these headers? like imagine putting "Good Qualities" for a death, that's shameless. qualitipedia is not just about explaining media, it's about moments too. death of respected people is a moment that is lamented by their followers. at this poimt i think the argument boils down to "they don't follow the qualitipedia format so these pages must go" VS "they can stay, not all pages have to follow the typical format". i'm on the side of the latter one. that said if you want to make the format closer but not the same, you can make more parallels to the typical format by adding an "Impact"/"Cultural impact" section to the page (i don't remember if they have one i'm on bed now and i'm too lazy to check). Yonydesk (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  It's not disrespectful to make a page about someone's death. Hell, I'm working on a page about Etika's death on CGW right now. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said it is disrespectful, I said it is irrelevant to the content of Qualitipedia. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  since these technically count as moment pages, which have a category all to themselves. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. They seem to function more as memorial pages than actual moment pages, as there are no listed good or bad qualities. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's ignoring the fact that a majority of moment pages on Qualitipedia lack bad/good qualities altogether. Marxo Grouch (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Doing this will be more insulting towards the death than having them here.   The King of Dice   (talk|contributions) 00:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How so? Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * honestly i don't see how removing the pages is disrespectful if it's for a genuine reason. also does this imply that having the pages is disrespectful? Yonydesk (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) They count as terrible moments in history rather than the wikis being an obituary. Also, just because another wiki that we have no relationship with exists doesn't mean we should get rid of content that may fit better there and move it there ᗩTOᗰIᑕᔕTᗩᖇ 💬 ⌨ 00:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, they do not function as terrible moment pages and rather seem to be just memorial pages. If we added good and bad qualities to the pages, then they would work. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Qualitipedia isn't completely about good and bad qualities. Plus, why would there be good qualities of someone's death? ᗩTOᗰ</b>Iᑕ</b>ᔕT</b>ᗩᖇ</b> 💬 ⌨ 23:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Deaths are still one of the most terrible moments in history, hence the reason pages like these are in the Terrible Moments category, and we have no relations with Depressing Deaths Wiki. Dragonite (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the people who have pages about their deaths had a positive impact on their respective industries thanks to their talents and works. It would feel disrespectful to not acknowledge their legacy. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All the reasons why I oppose this request, have already been said by other users, so I will not say something that others have already said others, what I will say, is that it is a Terrible idea to make a "Depressing Deaths Wiki", because that wiki, First, It could contain many deaths of people who were not really that good, and Second, That wiki would not even have opposite wiki, that is, nobody wants a "Happy Deaths Wiki". Juan90980 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) No offence here, but this is the stupidest idea I've ever stumbled upon. Why delete pages about deaths, especially deaths of people who has shaped/contributed to multiple entertainment industries? The reason why we have these pages is because their deaths are anything but pleasant. Death is unpleasant — deceased people may never see their friends, families, or even their fans again, and that includes YOU. That's why the pages covering deaths are reserved for CGW, AMW, TTSW, etc. And even after their deaths, their legacies still live. These pages not only tell us about their lives and deaths, but also help preserve their legacies for the next generations. All I can say is that “YOU SHALL NOT DELETE.” And anyone who opposes my opinion is certainly an ignorant one. 🦖️  <span style="font-family:monospace;font-size:1em;background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,148,188,1) 35%, rgba(23,133,173,1) 100%);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">my Name is Katsumi <rp>(</rp><rt style="color:black;font-size:.95em;text-shadow:0 0 5pt #40bcff;">BA↗RI↘BA↗RI↘</rt><rp>)</rp>  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Fate_Go Skip B,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  09:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While yes, death is unpleasant, everybody is going to die someday, even celebrities. Death is something that is inevitable. That is why I suggested at least deleting the pages about natural deaths, and keeping pages about artificial deaths. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * that's not what's being argued there bluba, as heated as katsumi sounds. Yonydesk (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Pretty much everyone else has said what I wanted to say on this one, as they aren't that unnecessary as they document these deaths in an encyclopedic manner and some of these pages are actually tied to events in history so there's nothing wrong at all with them staying, and isn't even that big of an issue considering that the amount of standard QP pages massively outnumber the celerity death pages 100 to 1. This is kind of a dumb idea tbh. Wing Commander confed star.png<span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,red,blue,black,blue,red); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">TigerBlazer  18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm usually the one who cares the most about other wikis, especially when there's one on Miraheze, and "they're not affiliated with us" is a stupid excuse of duplicating something. However, the problem is that I am pretty sure we have had these pages for a long time, and I'm also pretty sure Depressing Deaths Wiki was made without any discussion with the administrators on these wikis, and the admins never seemed to have interest in affiliating (although I am not 100% sure about this, I just haven't seen any discussions about it). Therefore, if anything, they are the ones who duplicated our wikis rather than the other way around, except that their wiki didn't duplicate Qualitipedia completely, they just made a wiki that duplicated some of its content. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 00:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) This is too late, but I think this is a terrible idea. I've said "While you could argue these pages are repetitive, you could say the the same for cancellation pages. Like “Development Troubles, OOPS!” end page." in the comments. While it's true that all death pages don't have GQ/BQ, the same can be said for many other moment pages. And finally, they count as terrible moments in history.ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)