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. However strong policy based objections were raised by those arguing for deletion. It would appear that there is definitely a need to reconsider the list's title and the criteria for inclusion given the problem of subjectivity in what constitutes an "unusual" death. Determining this cannot be left to judgment calls by editors given WP:OR. WjBscribe 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths[edit]

List of unusual deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This list defies NPOV, No Original Research, and WP's standards on Notabilty

First of all, the word "Unusual" is highly problematic as it is a very subjective word, on par with "good", "bad", and "normal". A death that may seem unusual to one person may not seem so to another, and even within different contexts of data may lose its seeming unusualness.

If we were to change this article's title to "List of deaths generally viewed/cited as unusual", we still would be doing original research, and this would still be only presenting a biased view.

If we were to change this article's title to "List of deaths refered to as unusual", all the remaining entries will be sourced, however, these will be hard to find, and barely representative of the subject, and be mostly lifted from published personal opinions. (Although this option will satisfy verifiability).

And if we were to change this article to focus soley on statistically unusual deaths, the whole article will have to be rewritten to include rare diseases, rare instruments of destruction, etc,etc. In addition, what aspect of the death and in what context will we look at look at to declare it statistically unusual? (Of course, this will violate NOR)

And lastly, the subject of the list itself, "unusual deaths" is hardly notable at all. It may often pop up in trivia books (which often repeat many myths and unverifiable factoids), but this subject, by itself, does not meet WP:NOTE.


In this discussion, please avoid arguments such as "It's interesting", "It's useful", "It's entertaining". For help, read WP:AADD.

I know people are very much attached to this content, but please, this does not belong on WP. There are other wikis with not such stringent guidelines that may be better places for this bit of trivia, such as [1], [2], and [3]. Blueaster 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meets notability criteria for lists under WP:BIO: “Instead, the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline.” Re: Sensationalism. Listing Isadora Duncan’s death as “unusual” may be more emotionally-involved than listing it as “road accident.” That makes it more challenging but no less valid. Actually supports NPOV: “representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” If the published sources perceived the death as unusual, the encyclopedia should respect and reflect that fact, just as is done with list of deaths by date or by cause. Category:Lists_of_people_by_cause_of_death For instance, Toilet-related Injuries are real and the subject of medical research, and the article includes a section on Famous Toilet-related Deaths and as a theme in popular culture. Re: Litvinenko death. It's unusual because poisoning by polonium is not common and was perceived as a notable way to go. Canuckle 06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, you're saying we should change the article to be about Deaths refered to as unusual, of notable people? Although this will be verifiable, it still is a very narrow group defined by trivial criteria, and we would have to parse through biographies and text books and news pieces to find the authors' actual reference to the death as "odd", "strange", "quirky", "unusual", etc, as using anything else to gauge the authors' opinion would lean towards original research. Blueaster 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and clarify what you meant by "Listing Isadora Duncan’s death as “unusual” may be more emotionally-involved than listing it as “road accident.” That makes it more challenging but no less valid.".... Blueaster 07:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Grue , your reason in the first AfD was "Keep, useful list", and you didn't appear in the second vote. Are you saying that if an article has been previously AfD'd and survived it should never be deleted? Vizjim 10:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe everything that needs to be said was already discussed in the previous nominations. This article is fully verifiable, and as such has a place in our encyclopedia.  Grue  13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the reason given for the first nomination was that the list is an indiscriminate collection of information, the second nomination was for its unverifiability, and this third, more thorough nomination is because the article breaks several Wikipedia policies, as outlined above. The reasons for nomination being different, the reasons for your vote should surely change? Vizjim 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the hell is WP:NOT#INFO??? Can you provide some reasoning instead of copypasting others stray links?  Grue  13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The list of deaths is interesting, certainly; I enjoyed reading it. But the information in it is collected together not because it addresses a topic that is itself notable, but rather because it has entertainment value. To me, this means that WP:NOT#INFOWP:NOT#IINFO applies. (I'm not sure if you're asking what the link is or what I meant by it; that link points to the subsection of WP:NOT that I feel applies.) I don't think it's accurate to call this a stray link -- this argument is common enough in AfD discussions, and is certainly a legitimate argument for deletion, though you may well disagree about whether it applies here. Mike Christie (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah. Sorry about that; I only just noticed the typo myself. I have struck and edited it above. Grue is correct that I copied it down from a prior poster; seemed quicker than retyping it and I didn't notice the typo in the prior post. Mike Christie (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And about Wikipedia:list of unusual articles. If "Unusual deaths" is allowed to remain on the mainspace, then why don't we make a "List of unusual places", and a "list of unusual names", and a "List of unusal objects and inventions"? Those topics will never survive a week on article space, but they're just as arbitrary and POV and OR as this one. Blueaster 03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unusual" is a subjective quality, not an objective one. What is unusual to you may not be to me.Chunky Rice 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Worms in his gentiles, definately not. Putrefication of his genitals, possibly. Slavlin 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. It was a rather odd spelling error that I corrected. bibliomaniac15 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with a list of deaths; see Lists of people by cause of death. At least some of the articles listed there are worth keeping. The problems with this article have been discussed above and relate to subjectivity, original research, and lack of inherent notability, among other things. Mike Christie (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2007 (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.
More