Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. However strong policy based objections were raised by those arguing for deletion. It would appear that there is definitely a need to reconsider the list's title and the criteria for inclusion given the problem of subjectivity in what constitutes an "unusual" death. Determining this cannot be left to judgment calls by editors given WP:OR. WjBscribe 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list defies NPOV, No Original Research, and WP's standards on Notabilty

First of all, the word "Unusual" is highly problematic as it is a very subjective word, on par with "good", "bad", and "normal". A death that may seem unusual to one person may not seem so to another, and even within different contexts of data may lose its seeming unusualness.

If we were to change this article's title to "List of deaths generally viewed/cited as unusual", we still would be doing original research, and this would still be only presenting a biased view.

If we were to change this article's title to "List of deaths refered to as unusual", all the remaining entries will be sourced, however, these will be hard to find, and barely representative of the subject, and be mostly lifted from published personal opinions. (Although this option will satisfy verifiability).

And if we were to change this article to focus soley on statistically unusual deaths, the whole article will have to be rewritten to include rare diseases, rare instruments of destruction, etc,etc. In addition, what aspect of the death and in what context will we look at look at to declare it statistically unusual? (Of course, this will violate NOR)

And lastly, the subject of the list itself, "unusual deaths" is hardly notable at all. It may often pop up in trivia books (which often repeat many myths and unverifiable factoids), but this subject, by itself, does not meet WP:NOTE.

In this discussion, please avoid arguments such as "It's interesting", "It's useful", "It's entertaining". For help, read WP:AADD.

I know people are very much attached to this content, but please, this does not belong on WP. There are other wikis with not such stringent guidelines that may be better places for this bit of trivia, such as, , and. Blueaster 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, highly indiscriminate and inherently POV. "Unusual" is completely arbitrary, and it shows in many of these entries: how are the suicides of Brandon Vedas and R. Budd Dwyer "unusual?" How is the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko "unusual"? (And I strongly agree with the nom that people need to drill WP:AADD into their heads several times before stating their argument.) Krimpet (talk/review) 04:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. We really, really don't need this. YechielMan 04:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Meets notability criteria for lists under WP:BIO: “Instead, the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline.” Re: Sensationalism. Listing Isadora Duncan’s death as “unusual” may be more emotionally-involved than listing it as “road accident.” That makes it more challenging but no less valid. Actually supports NPOV: “representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” If the published sources perceived the death as unusual, the encyclopedia should respect and reflect that fact, just as is done with list of deaths by date or by cause. Category:Lists_of_people_by_cause_of_death For instance, Toilet-related Injuries are real and the subject of medical research, and the article includes a section on Famous Toilet-related Deaths and as a theme in popular culture. Re: Litvinenko death. It's unusual because poisoning by polonium is not common and was perceived as a notable way to go. Canuckle 06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTthis is of no uses to anyone it should be in people magazine not a refrance work66.108.211.125 05:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)david hodgson
 * Delete, This would be completely unmanageable, but did you notice the Herod thing about putrefaction of his gentiles?--killing sparrows 06:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * “”Keep”” but perhaps with more specific criteria. The previous discussions are pretty comprehensive.
 * So, basically, you're saying we should change the article to be about Deaths refered to as unusual, of notable people? Although this will be verifiable, it still is a very narrow group defined by trivial criteria, and we would have to parse through biographies and text books and news pieces to find the authors' actual reference to the death as "odd", "strange", "quirky", "unusual", etc, as using anything else to gauge the authors' opinion would lean towards original research. Blueaster 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * and clarify what you meant by "Listing Isadora Duncan’s death as “unusual” may be more emotionally-involved than listing it as “road accident.” That makes it more challenging but no less valid.".... Blueaster 07:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per all the good arguments given here and in the previous AfD's. This is inherently original research, and more suited to I.P.Freely's Interesting Information than a supposedly objective encyclopedia.  Vizjim 07:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (I should say that I previously nominated this list for deletion, and since that nomination was defeated have been working with other the editors to improve it, a process that has if anything hardened my conviction that the list is the worst kind of original research and POV bait. Vizjim 10:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep per Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (second nomination) and Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths.  Grue   08:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Grue , your reason in the first AfD was "Keep, useful list", and you didn't appear in the second vote. Are you saying that if an article has been previously AfD'd and survived it should never be deleted? Vizjim 10:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe everything that needs to be said was already discussed in the previous nominations. This article is fully verifiable, and as such has a place in our encyclopedia.  Grue   13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reason given for the first nomination was that the list is an indiscriminate collection of information, the second nomination was for its unverifiability, and this third, more thorough nomination is because the article breaks several Wikipedia policies, as outlined above. The reasons for nomination being different, the reasons for your vote should surely change? Vizjim 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * BJAODN a shame this had to be nominated as I most definitely like it. The funniest article at AfD since the list of US Vice-Presidents who have shot people. MLA 10:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - see WP:NOT, clear violation.Vlad fedorov 17:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grue. I suspect that this will just keep getting AFDd until those defending it get bored, or are away for the debate. Enries need to be disciplined, tho. Maybe POV, but it's a (popular) trivial article with little ideological implication. The JPS talk to me  11:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)  The JPS talk to me  11:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with more specific criteria. Potentially very interesting list. --Jetman 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and WP:NOT WP:NOT. I don't see how to make this simultaneously notable, sourceable, and well-defined. Mike Christie (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell is WP:NOT??? Can you provide some reasoning instead of copypasting others stray links?  Grue   13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The list of deaths is interesting, certainly; I enjoyed reading it.  But the information in it is collected together not because it addresses a topic that is itself notable, but rather because it has entertainment value.  To me, this means that WP:NOT WP:NOT applies.  (I'm not sure if you're asking what the link is or what I meant by it; that link points to the subsection of WP:NOT that I feel applies.)  I don't think it's accurate to call this a stray link -- this argument is common enough in AfD discussions, and is certainly a legitimate argument for deletion, though you may well disagree about whether it applies here. Mike Christie (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Grue, it's pretty clear from the context that he was referring to WP:NOT and simply mistyped. Please don't resort to wikilawyering. Krimpet (talk/review) 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah. Sorry about that; I only just noticed the typo myself.  I have struck and edited it above.  Grue is correct that I copied it down from a prior poster; seemed quicker than retyping it and I didn't notice the typo in the prior post.  Mike Christie (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The list has 35 references, and most of the deaths are certainly by unusual means. The normal editing process can via consensus delete any which are too common. There is no reason to limit it notable people who died unusual deaths. Since the persons share the feature of diying unusual deaths, the list is not indiscriminate. Similar lists have long enjoyed a place in such reference works. Edison 14:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that editors should decide which deaths are unusual and which are not? This would violate NPOV, because it would be declaring what's unusual from the perspective of ourselves. And our judgement of a death as usual/unusual would be original research. As I've said before, references would only validate an entry if the author expressed explicitly that the death was odd. Blueaster 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not too hard of an exercise to find a reference wherein a reliable and independant commentator will say the a British noble dying from the effects of a red hot poker being stuck up his rectum is an "unusual way to go." That would satisfy your worries about it being "original research" by a Wikipedia editor thinking that to be an unusual way to go. Googling shows that this particluar article has been widely and favorably cited on other websites, so readers of Wikipedia besides those arguing here for keeping it have apparently found it useful.Edison 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No vote, but please BJAODN if it gets deleted. --3M163'//Complete Geek 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why BJAODN? This is neither bad, nor nonsense. A better place would be Wikipedia: namespace, alongside with Unusual articles.  Grue   15:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True, it is neither a bad joke nor silly nonsense. It's just too trivial and subjective for WP, which is why I suggested Wikia, bluewiki, and anarchopedia to transfer this article to, and not uncyclopedia. Blueaster 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I assumed that BJAODN was for any humorous material, not just bad jokes. :-) I find the article interesting and funny, but as has been pointed out, that's not grounds for a keep... just, please, per Chevinki, preserve it in some way! :-) --3M163//Complete Geek 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grue. The list is supported by many sources. This is very interesting list.Biophys 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleteper nom and transwiki elsewhere. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep it in the mainspace but it'd be a pity to see such unusual information disappear. Chevinki 17:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see no properly appropriate reasons for the deletion of this article. Firstly, it's well-referenced, most of mentioned-deaths are based on reliable sources. Secondly these deaths totally deserve notability, for example Georg Wilhelm Richmann or Saint Peter, whose have particular section about their deaths on their main articles . Thirdly, the conception of "unusual" is "not" assessed by the editors themselves, all the deaths they write in the article are,widely  believed to be "unusual" by a significant group of people, which is indicated by a long list of references from different collected sources . Thus, it's not POV nor completely original research. However, we should clean up a bit, remove several "not very notably unsual" and "lack-of-referenced" ones instead of deleting the whole article.  Apple  • •w• •o• •r• •m• •  17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BJAODN Some and transwiki to that joke wikipedia. Too funny to be ignored George Leung 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is an interesting list, and I've read this one before, but I can't disagree with the nominator on this one.  Articles with subjective words in the title like "Unusual" unfortunately have subjective inclusion criteria, and pretty much by their nature POV.  It does amount to a source of trivial information, and doesn't have any real inherent notability, either.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The ambiguous nature of the list makes it OR/POV pretty much by default.  If someone can come up with an objective measure by which to determine what is included, I could change my opinion, though.Chunky Rice 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless you can find me a non-POV defintion of "unusual." In the USA, beheading is unusual. Other places, not so much. Slavlin 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BJAODN and delete, easily. This is incredibly silly! =^_^= --Dennisthe2 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete unless sourced, and that means the unusual aspect needs to be sourced, not just that the deaths happened. None of the previous noms actually addressed the fundamental issues with "what's unusual?" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Grue and AFD1. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 01:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is no possible objective definition of "unusual" and thus requires impermissble POV judgment calls on the parts of editors. Otto4711 02:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The NPOV argument appears to be a bit too strict with the NPOV application. If this is deleted, what will keep "Unusual articles" from being deleted? And from there, WP:DAFT could easily fall, as "freaky" is far more POV than "unusual". And from there, we would go to WP:LAW, and even WP:BJAODN itself! THE HORROR!Gorank4 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unusual articles was deleted from article space, because it is fundamentally OR/POV. Pages in project space don't need to obey NPOV. Your examples are incredibly misleading and in fact represent precedent for deleting this article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because this article is fun to read.  However, I do agree that "unusual" should probably be given a more specific definition and that the "unusual-ness" should be sourced.  Useight 05:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "I like it" is not a valid reason. Do you have any reason for your vote beyond this? Vizjim 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that we could ever find a source defining "usualness". And if we do, the article would have to be changed to "Unusual deaths, as defined by X" Blueaster 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; if this list had just been created, I'd say delete, but it has become something of a Wikipedia tradition by now. By its nature there can obviously be no WP:BLP concerns, and the talk page shows intense and serious debate over criteria for inclusion. If it can't be kept here, it should be moved to Wikipedia namespace, BJAODN, or another wiki. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you saying we should keep it and leave it alone because it's survived this long and people like it and it would do no harm? You obviously have never come across WP:AADD. Blueaster 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just wanted to say that the comment on WP:BLP is one of the best throw-away lines I've heard recently. Thanks for making my day! :-) --3M163//Complete Geek 10:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The only real problem with this article is the criteria for unusualness, which (like inclusion of items in hundreds or thousands of other list articles) is handled adequately by editorial consensus. A consensus of editors applying common sense does not equal original research in the sense meant by the policy. (If it does, most of those list articles should be nominated as well.) Other than the inclusion criteria, the article is reasonably good in that it requires the subjects to be notable persons (including people famous for the specific manner of their death) with existing articles about them, and requires attribution of the facts involved. Alternatively, if the article is not deemed worth of keeping in article space (although reading this discussion I see no consensus for deletion), it could be moved to project space à la List of unusual articles. --MCB 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a weak argument. Name one other list where "editorial consensus" on someething as subjective as "unusualness" preceeds inclusion of an item. Remember, "common sense" is not as common as you think. What if all the editors were from Japan, and a notable person died of a heart attack? Or there was a famous Maori who died of infection from female circumsicion? Or if someone from Latin America died from an accident related to Susto, a psychological disorder primarily seen in Latin America? North American editors would definately agree that it would be unusual, because it's unusual to them.
 * And about list of unusual articles. If "Unusual deaths" is allowed to remain on the mainspace, then why don't we make a "List of unusual places", and a "list of unusual names", and a "List of unusal objects and inventions"? Those topics will never survive a week on article space, but they're just as arbitrary and POV and OR as this one. Blueaster 03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep If unusual is to subjective should the word be removed from every wikipedia article where it used? Tjc 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless attributed to someone else making the analysis, yes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What? We're talking about unusualness as a criteria for inclusion in a list, not the word, "unusual", which may be very well be used objectively in description of many trends, views, and opinions. Blueaster 03:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Unusual" is a subjective quality, not an objective one. What is unusual to you may not be to me.Chunky Rice 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * BJAODN. And I doubt that Herod the Great would have died because of worms in his gentiles.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Worms in his gentiles, definately not. Putrefication of his genitals, possibly. Slavlin 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. It was a rather odd spelling error that I corrected.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * observation, from my POV at first, the arguments for delete outnumbered those for keep, and I think those were from people who frequent deletion discussions and are familiar with them... and now, there's a flood of keep votes from people who are attached to this article and just don't want to see it gone. Seriously.... look at how many people are basically arguing "I like it". Blueaster 03:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do like it; I realise that, but I'm willing merely to transwiki it, or even (if it's completely deleted) to have to store it on my own computer... I've just decided not to vote, and to see how the discussion plays out. --3M163//Complete Geek 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 08:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. What the hell is the matter with having a list of deaths, mythological or unattributed or otherwise?  If the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform and to engage the reader, this item worked for me.  If the purpose is to be just another dry elitist compilation of things other people want you to know, then what's the point of this site in the first place?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.86.156 (talk • contribs).
 * There's nothing wrong with a list of deaths; see Lists of people by cause of death. At least some of the articles listed there are worth keeping.  The problems with this article have been discussed above and relate to subjectivity, original research, and lack of inherent notability, among other things. Mike Christie (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a valuable article and has already been used as a sourse for other internet postings. To delete such a resource for hypertechnical reasons would be sillieness at it's worst. Doug O'Connell 05:40 EDT, 31 March 2007
 * I wonder if this article ends up being moved to "Wikipedia:List of articles detailing unusual deaths", if the original page could become a redirect to that Blueaster 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This artic;e is both interesting and informative whilst being slightly 'quirky'. Articles like this are what sets wikipedia apart from any book bound reference. Bass fishing physicist 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - interesting and encylopaedic. also well sourced +Hexagon1 (t) 09:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to see some policy reasons for keeping the article other than "I like it."  At the very least WP:IAR as an acknowledgement that we'd be keeping this in contravention of policy.Chunky Rice 16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some policy reasons for deleting this article. So far no such reasons have been presented (in the nom, or elsewhere).  Grue   16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This is becoming amusing... it looks like we're dealing with an article that is not covered by Wikipedia policy. :-) Shall we create WP:LISTOFUNUSUALDEATHSMUSTBEKEPT? --3M163//Complete Geek 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you just ignoring the various WP:NPOV and WP:OR arguments, then?Chunky Rice 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fundamental issues with NPOV, NOR, and ATT not enough for you? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:28, 3 April 2007 (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.


 * Keep - Content is related to the theme. Although improvements on the title might be needed. --Maverx (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)