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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths[edit]

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

Lists of "unusual" things are having mixed fortunes in the article namespace currently. Some have been deleted; reasons cited include that they are "unencyclopaedic", that "unusual" is in the eye of the beholder and thus contravenes our neutral point of view policy, that such lists are not verifiable, and that such a list amounts to original research. I have no opinion on this subject, other than our deletion decisions in this area should be consistent, and so I'm adopting a neutral stance. Note however that this deletion nomination seeks to establish community consensus for this article, not for others. There have been previous deletion discussions for this article, which have resulted in its retention. SP-KP (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is just a list of deaths that the authors think are unusual, which makes it original research. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Talk Page before you make unsupportable statements. Entries are frequently discussed at length by several contributors before being included or deleted. Editors often step in to assist with references. Entries that are considered weak are often researched and rewritten in an effort to maintain consistency. Wikipedia isn't just about the easy edits. Just because this article might be hard to maintain, doesn't mean it should be deleted.--JeffJ (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having multiple authors doesn't necessarily make it objective. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could be said about Wikipedia at large.--JeffJ (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral This article is well maintained and sourced. I would prefer a fitting trans-wiki to deletion. BTW, this does seem to be a potentially sourceable article: [1][2][3][4] NJGW (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- As long as its sourced, there's nothing wrong with this article. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear WP:NOR violation. THF (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a WP:NOR violation? All material is referenced with independent sources.--JeffJ (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Referenced, sourced, etc. How is it any different to this list? Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one main difference. In my intro, I make the point that such articles are having a hard time in article namespace. That article is in Wikipedia namespace, where inclusion criteria are different. SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article is well sourced (124 references). Since 2004, editors have come to a consensus on what constitutes an unusual death. It's common sense, not original research. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with User:Brownsnout spookfish's comments. Who is to say what is "unusual"? Statistically, there is a small chance of dying in a plane crash. Isn't that unusual, then? I see no way this article can be consistently edited. Timneu22 (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the manners of death in this list are so uncommon only a handful of people died of them. Thousands of people died in planes. You're mistaking uncommon (how often it happened) with unlikely (the chance of it happening). - Mgm|^(talk) 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After reading the article it is pretty clear to me what qualifies as unusual. The manners of death listed in this article are so uncommon they've only happened a handful of times in recorded history (or even just once). The inclusion criteria could be more explicit, but since all of the entries are properly sourced, that is something that could be handled through editing. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Here we go again. If it's properly sourced, then I honestly don't care if my cousin Edna thinks that unusual is a matter of opinion, or that articles of this nature just ought not to be in a respectable encyclopedia. We're not a respectable encyclopedia, we're the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that's a lot of us make donations when Jimmy Wales reminds us to. The question is not so much whether the article "belongs" in an encyclopedia, but whether it can be given encyclopedic treatment -- verifying that a statement is true and providing the proof, arranging the information in a readable form, and double checking new statements. Where Wikipedia excels is when it gives encyclopedic treatment to topics that hadn't received it in the past. In this case, it places verifiable sources for incidents that would otherwise be difficult to track down. We've all heard the story of the guy who was doing a concert and got electrocuted when he grabbed the microphone, but where do you start looking for it? (Les Harvey, Stone the Crows, 1972, yes, it really happened). I think that there ought to be a strict rule in place for this type of page, requiring that every item on the list has to have a citation, but people do consult reference works in order to find out about more about a whole world of questions. Unusual is a relative term, so is "nice", have a nice day. Mandsford (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get started on a list of nice people then. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27000 hits on "nice+person"&ie=UTF-8 google news... could be a long list. NJGW (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I won't be on the nice people list. Mandsford (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is very well-sourced, and "unusual" isn't really an opinion in obvious cases like these.--Unscented (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak Keep but find a better title and real guidelines. The problem here is that a/ many of the individual events are based not on history, but on legend and will not actually hold up. People alleged to die of over-eating in historical sources may simply be contemporaneous slander. b/ Many of the others listed aren't that unusual;. (eg lightning), or c/ just famous people who died in public , or d/ in some cases are just stupidities that would fail NOT NEWS.. Sourced gossip is still gossip. DGG (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly 99% of the population would consider 99% of the deaths recorded on this page to be unusual. The article is more or less sourced and methinks all can be verified except for the earliest ones. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 04:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note how virtually all the deaths mentioned are of notable persons, if not famous. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 04:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with better-written guidelines. —shoecream 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This topic is adequately researched and cannot be covered anymore objectively than it already is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.31.29 (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is "unusual"? How long can this list go on if kept? Unmaintainable and subjective. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective, maybe, But nonetheless well maintained, monitored and referenced.--JeffJ (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article provides factual information as much as is possible. While the labelling of "unusual" can be somewhat arbitrary, editors has diligently maintained this article to ensure that entries fall within the ad hoc parameters. Editors often find themselves disagreeing on whether and entry is valid, but this has always been settled through discussion. That aside, this article illustrates how the most unlikely happenstance can cause a person's demise as well as illustrating the unusual cruelty the human race has been capable of. Mortality is of interest to all of us and this article provides an excellent starting point into its study.--JeffJ (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Unusual (or "bizarre") deaths appears to be a topic of popular interest on the internet. Numerous news articles have been written (see some of the links provided above by NJGW). What I've noticed is that it is very common, even in mainstream publications, for urban legends to be reported as fact or facts to be skewed. In the case of List of unusual deaths, editors have been meticulous about ensuring that all entries are supported by reliable references. If an entry is supported by legend or the facts are disputed by scholars, this is stated in the entry. This article may not be "encyclopaedic" per se, but does offer a well researched and referenced source of information on a subject of significant interest. --JeffJ (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article provides factual information, well sourced; and it makes me smile up to both ears. Wonderful wiki! Power.corrupts (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sourced and factual. I don't see a reason to delete. Zouavman Le Zouave 02:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Is the deletionist cabal really so bored as to claim OR on such an article as this? Yawnfest. Hooper (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For example, there are two people on this list who got killed by helicopter blades, which isn't a particularly rare cause of death. Are they there just because they happen to be "notable"? or is there something objectively unusual about this which I fail to grasp? Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. There has been a significant amount of discussion on the talk-page about creating a checklist for inclusion. So far, the rule of thumb has been the notability of the death (Suicide is not notable, but suicide live on a webcam is), the notability of the person, or if the entire event is unusual AND has its own Wiki-article. It's not a "carved in stone" criteria and often editors will debate an entry (again, see the article's talk page). We really do need a checklist along the lines of "if your entry meets 7 out of 10 of the criteria...". But this can be accomplished and the article shouldn't be deleted just because it needs some fine-tuning. --JeffJ (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, a checklist like that still violates wp:OR. We can't be the ones making the standard. But we can report that such-and-such a death has been labled as unusual by a wp:Notable source. NJGW (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit the list. Cue the Tom Jones music -- "It's not unusual to be killed by any blade (nananananana), it's not unusual from a helicopter blade (nananana), but when I see it on the Wi-kipedia... it's not unusual to see me cry.. Oh, I wanna die." Mandsford (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - many of the objections above make sense, in the that they illustrate how the article is squishy, borderline, and short of perfection - but they're not potent enough to kill it. (By the way, does anybody know the wikipedia record for most AFD discussions for a single article? This is No. 4) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article is very informative and well-sourced. No other place in the internet gives this kind of information. It is well maintained and edited. Stop nitpicking on articles that make wikipedia great! My only suggestion would be to break the article up into several pieces because it is getting too long and unwieldy - Powerslide —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy keep as two previous discussions already closed as "keep" and because literally hundreds of thousands of readers look at this aricle monthly. As that tool reveals, it is one of the top 500 articles we have! Moreover, our editors work regularly on the list as well. Hundreds of thousands of editors and readers obviously think this interesting article is wikipedic. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:21, 21 January 2009 (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.