Template:Did you know nominations/Multiple-peril Insurance


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Allen3 talk 22:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator

Multiple-peril insurance

 * ... that life insurance policies are considered multiple-peril insurance when they include coverage for UFO abduction?
 * Reviewed: KV15

Created by Wsoule (talk). Nominated by 78.26 (talk) at 15:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC).


 * I'm afraid I have to request a quote from the offline source confirming that UFO-abduction coverage is in fact offered as a bone fide option, and not just a hypothetical possibility. EEng (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Wsoule? 78.26? Can you please supply the requested quote so this nomination can proceed? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of insurance resources, but not that one. I'll see if someone I know has it, or maybe the local library.  Give me a couple of days.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried and failed. The source is a college textbook for entry-level Risk Management majors, and as such is not available in libraries.  I'm also not willing to pay $130 in order to continue this DYK.  I work for an insurance company, and have no reason to doubt the claim.   If you want it, you can get insurance for about anything, and I have almost no doubt that a company in the US or UK has added this to a life policy as a selling point, figuring on no additional loss exposure.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "I work for an insurance company, and have no reason to doubt the claim." I take it you don't work in the claims department? Get the joke? insurance...claim?
 * Seriously, and now especially since it's a textbook, I have the sneaking suspicious that this might be a fanciful hypothetical discussed to illustrate the concept of multi-peril. But I don't get it -- if you don't have access to the source, how do you know what it says? EEng (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, I get it EEng. I laughed so hard I peed my policy.  No, I don't work in claims.  Thank goodness.  Hardest, least appreciated job in the industry.  I don't know for sure what it says.  I didn't write the article.  I only nominated it.  I moved it to the mainspace from AfC, and decided to nominate it for DYK because I insurance topics are grossly represented here.  I only said I accept the sentence and source AGF, because I have some knowledge of the subject and it seems highly plausible.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 00:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, why don't you put together a hook about subrogation? Or the collateral source rule? Either one would be a big hit. EEng (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good times. Both relate to insurance in general (and subrogation is nearly crucial to the topic) but neither are particularly pertinent to the topic of multi-peril.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you know we have an article on Alien abduction insurance? Apparently, London based firm Goodfellow Rebecca Ingrams Pearson used to offer alien abduction coverage. That backfired when this happened and led to its withdrawal. For the more specific UFO-abduction coverage, Florida based firm UFO Abduction Insurance Company offers it, according to Forbes and the most recent Guinness World Records. Seems to agree with 's claim above - if you want it enough, they'll offer it. Fuebaey (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct, Alien abduction insurance is currently offered by several companies, and has been since the 1947. I included a link to the wiki article in edit 640104874.  The only thing I am not able to demonstrate is a company is currently selling a life insurance with an endorsement (or built-in clause) that covers the "alien abduction peril.  That said, it is almost inevitable that, at some point, this option was offered, which is why I had no trouble AGF the offline source when I nominated.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so you understand, I'm not trying to make trouble. It's just that this is the kind of thing that will get WP snickered at unless it's really rock-solid. Might I suggest a hook something like ... that a policy that includes alien-abduction insurance would qualify as a multi-peril policy?, if you can find something saying that? That way it doesn't matter whether such coverage is really offered. (I have a hard time taking a "UFO Abduction Insurance Company" seriously, to be honest.) EEng (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't be accurate, and in fact directly conflicts with the information the article is presenting. I would say most alien abduction policies are single peril.  They insure against the peril of alien abduction.  The point of the hook (and source) is that some life insurance policies are or were offering additional coverage for alien abduction.  This covers a single effect (loss of income and/or companionship), but multiple insured perils ("death" and "alien abduction".)  Here the distinction is important, as it is assumed that the person insured against is still alive after the abduction.  Yes, it is hard to take seriously, but more of these policies were sold in the 1960s and 70s, when UFOs permeated popular culture.  That alien abduction insurance exists, taken seriously or not, is unassailable fact.   (which claims to be the original, but they are wrong, Lloyds of London offered it first),, , , . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.26 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 February 2015‎ (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, then say a multi-peril policy might include alien-abduction coverage). EEng (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 78.26, it's been over two weeks since the above; we still need a workable hook. Please return here as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdraw the nomination. If this hook can't be accepted on good faith based on above, I'm not sure that one can be made.  The online sources used in the article support issues peripheral to the main topic.  My involvement in the article was to review it at AfC and to clean it up, I don't have access to the specific sources used the by the author, who unfortunately has not edited since creating this article.  It appears to be a school project, using textbooks.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 12:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Nomination withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)