Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Causes of death of English national cricket captains


 * 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. - Bobet 16:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Causes of death of English national cricket captains
Do I have to say anything? The name says it all. Oh, alright. This is complete and utter listcruft, combining two things to form an indiscriminate collection of information. Do we really need a list of causes of death for every group of people? How about Causes of death of Bavarian monarchs or Causes of death of editors of the Economist? Nydas 08:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If more of them had died in unusual circumstances, it might be a handy (if somewhat left-field) article to have around. Nothing doing here, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, though it could do with proper sourcing on every line. Otherwise it seems well-researched and perfectly encyclopaedic to me. The Bavarian monarchs would be interesting too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I utterly fail to see the point of this. I suppose if it showed that a significant number of them had died after being struck by cricket balls it might tell us something, but not a one of them did! BTLizard 10:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete Strong Delete as per nom Morbid stickball fancruft. Very poor precedent if kept that would lead to masses of listcruft Bwithh 12:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to Strong Delete after revelations by User:Jguk below. Bwithh 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, encyclopedic article, and relating to notable group of people. --LiverpoolCommander 12:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete further to my comments on WT:CRIC -- ALoan (Talk) 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Much less notable than, say, a list of the causes of death of Bavarian Monarchs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThaddeusFrye (talk • contribs).
 * Keep per Stephen Turner. Interesting article too. Dave 15:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep An interesting offbeat article - it certainly has a wide fanbase, see here, for example. In reply to BigHaz and BTLizard, surely two suicides, Monty Bowden (#11), and Johnny Douglas (#22) are interesting in themselves, jguk 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not "surely". Why is that interesting? Wikipedia is not supposed to be the home of lurid & sensationalist exploitative speculation Bwithh 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * btw, OH MY GOD, did you just cite and link to to the freaking exact same article on Uncyclopedia as proof of the legitimacy of this article (and "wide fanbase")?!?!?! *I slam my head against desk, repeatedly*. Thank you for the insight, I'm changing my vote to Strong Delete. Bwithh 18:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You say the "exact same article" as if the text is the same; for those who haven't followed the link, it's a parody of it (and I think funnier than most of the stuff on Uncyclopedia, which usually bores me). But I don't think the existence of a parody on Uncyclopedia is a very good argument for or against keeping this one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected!! Bwithh 20:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - two suicides are of passing interest (perhaps more to the families of the men, but that's neither here nor there). Sadly, even a suicide is hardly "unusual circumstances", and even if it were there's only two instances thereof. As one user suggested earlier, if more of them had been hit by cricket balls and killed as a result, that would make the article more noteworthy. As it currently stands, this is an indiscriminate collection of information, being mainly natural causes of death for a particular subset of the human race. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 23:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Punkmorten 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Absurd listcruft. "List of minor characters from a forgotten TV series" is pearl of wisdom compared to this. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The article itself should stay in my opnion if it is sourced properly. The only problem it that it will open up another dimension to Wikipedia where there will be thousands of article called "Causes of death of ABC's".
 * Delete how can a list of causes of deaths be so boring? Any group of people collectively will have a variety of deaths, there's nothing encyclopedic about this set. MLA 08:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the only reason to have a list article is to establish some kind of notable connection between individual items. This is just a collection of random information with no notable connection.  That being said, I am half tempted to vote "keep" because the list does create fertile ground for parody on Uncyclopedia -- I'm already mentally composing, List of skin diseases of Welsh Olympians. Kubigula 22:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.