Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (4th nomination)

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KleenupKrew (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 19 January 2009 (→List of unusual deaths: delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:50, 19 January 2009 by KleenupKrew (talk | contribs) (→List of unusual deaths: delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

List of unusual deaths

AfDs for this article:

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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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: NJGW (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep- As long as its sourced, there's nothing wrong with this article. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Clear WP:NOR violation. THF (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Referenced, sourced, etc. How is it any different to this list? Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages namespace, where inclusion criteria are different. SP-KP (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)

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| 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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| 23:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- I'll get started on a list of nice people then. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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)
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)
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)
- 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)
Keep with better-written guidelines. —shoecream 05:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
Delete. What is "unusual"? How long can this list go on if kept? Unmaintainable and subjective. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories: