Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of accidents and disasters by death toll


 * 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

List of accidents and disasters by death toll

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Useless, unmaintainable WP:LISTCRUFT. According to the name of this article, it is intended to list every single accident in the history of mankind which resulted in at least one fatality. By any conceivable standard, this would include an incredibly high number. If applicable, the content might be split up into several articles about a narrower subject (for example aviation accidents which resulted in at least 50 fatalities), though on the other hand, such information seems already to exist, typically located at the respective article about a certain kind of accident. FoxyOrange (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with deletion. I think it'd be better, on the list that include many disasters, to say something like "List of (type of disaster) with more than (number) casualties:" before the list. There is something like that on rail disasters, but it appears not to be being respected. But I disagree with deletion; this list can be useful (I've used it sometimes), maybe it simply doesn't need to have accidents with very few fatalities, but I see no reason for it to be deleted. -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  17:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps remove "disasters" with only a handful of deaths. The fact that someone might add a car wreck or lion attack which killed one or a handful of people is no reason to delete a quite encyclopedic compilation of the worst accidents. Certainly there have been many disasters and accidents (as distinguished from war deaths, hurricanes etc.) which have individually gained significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. There has also been adequate amounts and quality of coverage of categories of disasters. Edison (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It just needs some cleanup. Animal attacks don't belong here, so I've merged them to Man-eater, while the floods are a partial duplication of another list and has been deleted. I'm also pretty sure that Aloha Airlines Flight 243 is not the 177th most deadly air accident with one fatality. If it becomes too large, it can always be split off into sublists later. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree it needs some clarity and cleanup, but this list is very useful. Maybe splitting it into sublists with a page listing all those would be better. I would be happy to assist with managing this list now I am aware there is a problem. It's way tto handy as a starting point for reading on disasters. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Its a useful list. There is no valid reason given to delete it.  These events all get coverage.  And obviously, by rule of simple common sense, we aren't listing every single thing that had just one person die from it.  The talk page of the article can be used to determine whether something belongs on the list or not.   D r e a m Focus  13:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmmm. I'm just looking it over again with a more critical eye. It's a bit confusing that the list numbers are sequential even if two or more incidents are listed for that death toll. Maybe a table would be a better layout? Jinnythesquinny (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jinny, I saw a guy doing that (I watch the page). It seemed like, in their opinion, all disasters with the same death toll should be put together. They didn't post that idea on the talk page, to be discussed, as they should. I disagreed, 'cause, obviously, the number would then lead to misinterpretation, but I didn't feel in a mood to undo it (I think at the time, I hadn't yet known the "undo" possibility, so I thought I had to do it manually!) nor to talk to them, but the guy obviously didn't think of the number list problem. I can search that revision for you, if you desire so... -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep We have many lists which, by their nature, have a long tail such as list of rivers, list of writers, list of alloys, list of games, &c. Obviously what we do in such case is concentrate upon the most notable examples.  If there's no obvious or exact cutoff point then this is no reason to delete the most important part of such lists - the head. Warden (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2013 (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.