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 delete. Whereas good-faith arguments from both sides were presented, I find delete arguments, referring to WP:EVENT and WP:OR stronger. The keep arguments are that the original accident, 2015 Villa Castelli mid-air collision, is notable, but we already have the article about an accident. If anybody wants to make a redirect, I do not object.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Olympics curse[edit]

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

Per WP:EVENT. There's no "lasting, historical significance" about a statistically insignificant number of deaths of people who happen to have participated in the same Olympics. -- Irn (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sort of thing a tabloid would run once it had run out of tabloid stories. Of precisely zero encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete bordering on original research. How is a cancer death related to a helicopter death or suicide? And somehow forms a statistically significant cluster? This kind of rubbish reporting would never make a medical journal. LibStar (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been quite a big story in France sparked by a helicopter crash. We have articles for all the ingredients here: the Olympics, the crash, the athletes such as Camille Muffat. As the topic is notable and per WP:ATD, we should consider merger before deletion. See Sports-related curses for details of other fanciful sports curses which have captured the popular imagination. Andrew D. (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while obviously a coincidence, many reliable sources have speculated on this (BBC [1], International Business Times [2], The Sun [3] and more). Antrocent (♫♬) 18:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That you consider The Sun to be a reliable source is indicative of the gravitas with which your opinion should be considered. Also, you say it yourself, it's a coincidence, and sources are "speculating". This is absolutely nothing that anyone would find in any encyclopedia anyone on planet Earth. We should be salting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears that this is actually less than significant, if we read the report on the actual statistical analysis, "statistically he would expect 28 of the athletes to have died by now" so we're nearly less than half as many, so this is just nonsensical tabloid garbage. It seems incredible to think that anyone would even consider this notable enough to report based on the facts, let alone attempt to write an encyclopedic article about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that this notability discussion shouldn't be centered on whether-or-not there is an actual statistical correlation. Rather, has the topic in and of itself generated enough conversation to merit being discussed encyclopedic-ally? It seems that the conversation is mostly French-based, and so probably someone (knowledgable) should seek out French sources on the topic before the general notability is decided. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I'm included to mention WP:BOLLOCKS and leave it at that there is clearly some notable coverage of this from reliable mainstream media which could meet the general notability criteria. In relation to 2016 celebrity death cluster, another ongoing deletion discussion, there has actually been some interesting coverage of the reasons behind the number of deaths (related to how more people are now perceived to be celebrities, baby boomers reaching older age etc.) but in this case the statistics clearly don't play out. Unless more sources than the BBC and IBT ones are found I'd lean towards delete on the basis of a few journalists having to write something for a deadline but for now I shall reserve judgement - Basement12 (T.C) 10:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - now that The Almightey Drill (see below) has added info to Sports-related curses I think a redirect to there is the answer - Basement12 (T.C) 08:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it needs to be noted that WP:EVENT presents more stringent criteria than WP:GNG for events precisely because so many events easily meet the GNG. An argument to keep the article must, therefore, explain how the article meets the criteria of WP:EVENT and not merely WP:GNG. -- Irn (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added a line on this at Sports-related curses. That's about as much as it deserves. '''tAD''' (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Almightey Drill: I agree that this is the best solution, but that probably means we need a redirect not an outright delete? - Basement12 (T.C) 09:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing else convincing for its own article, unlikely convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article for me is interesting (I quite like Olympics and death lists), but this is a trivial list, put together for lunchtime clickbait on the BBC website (if I'm being harsh, and I am). Look at any cross-section of 10,500 people who were alive four years ago, and a similar number of heart attacks, cancer victims, road accidents, and sadly murders, will be apparent. This simply isn't notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:12, 4 May 2016 (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.