Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (5th 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. The community appears to be evenly split about whether this is an indiscriminate list or whether sufficient sourcing about this topic exists to satisfy WP:LISTN. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

List of unusual deaths
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

OR, suffers from a terminal case of WP:RECENT. List is totally subjective, and as a result is essentially limitless. Initally appears to be well-sourced, but more than a few of the references are of dubious quality (Everything2.com, trivia-library.com, howstuffworks.com, several personal blogs, and irretrievable dead links, plus a whole passel of references to snopes.com, instead of the original sources from which snopes drew their data). Article cannot realistically be preserved in its current form, as the subject is too broad and subjective to limit criteria for inclusion.  Horologium  (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - very few keep arguments in the past 4 AfDs have been policy-based (more WP:ILIKEIT), while the delete arguments have been policy-based. Article suffers from WP:OR and can't help but fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also agree with nom. Ansh666 04:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And from the below, I see that this AfD follows the pattern of the previous couple, though I see a couple (intentional or not) invocations of WP:IAR too, which I may agree with. Ansh666 20:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - the nominations in the box on the right are quite out of order. I'll leave you to figure which is which, but they're really all the same in any case. Ansh666 04:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Why is that case "terminal"? Recent examples, hastily added, are usualy removed. The list is not "totally subjective" - editors have worked hard to establish objective criteria for inclusion - maybe that should be made clearer. List is not "limitless" in any way. By all means add those "original sources from which snopes drew their data" lack of good references is not an argument for article deletion. So this articke has survived 4 AfDs? Even with few supporting arguments? Additionally there have been recent concerted efforts to improve it. Seems you just don't like it. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. If there have been four previous AfDs, why is this one the 2nd? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be because of a quirk in the way that Twinkle sets up XFD nominations. It looks for numeric ordinals (2nd, 3rd, 4th) in titles when checking to see if there are previous nominations, and the second, third, and fourth discussions were all spelled out, rather than numbered with an ordinal suffix. Since the whole process of creating the discussion was automated, I didn't realize until after the fact that it generated a "duplicate" nomination. I'm not sure if we can simply rename this discussion as the fifth nomination and leave redirects from "2nd nomination", but I'm not sure if that would break anything.  Horologium  (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Provided there are no undesirable side-effects then, yes, I think it certainly should be re-named. Otherwise it's a bit misleading, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - the inherent, unavoidable weakness in this list is the impossibility of defining "unusual" precisely. Result is what we see - an indiscriminate list suffering badly from recentism. Without solid list inclusion criteria, this list will always grow according to editors' whims, whenever they find something vaguely "unusual", and no amount of pruning will fix the problem. Deletion is the correct solution for this ill-formed list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that large-scale pruning will not necessarily solve the problem. Are you aware of the current informally agreed criteria for inclusion? Why couldn't these be formalised and made more explicit? Why not try to agree what "unusual" means in this context? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then deletion is certainly the only option. I've never been asked about informal criteria before: such a thing would be quite inadequate to prevent listcruft, and there is no basis for it. The criteria for any list are those stated at the top of the article and indeed named in the title. Here we have "This list includes unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. Some of the deaths are mythological or are considered to be unsubstantiated by contemporary researchers. Some other articles also cover deaths that might be considered unusual or ironic". This is a multiple, overlapping or widely discrete, subjective, and unenforceable set of criteria. To reply to your question directly, we can't redefine the word "unusual", and even if we tried, people would just add whatever they felt was unusual. That way madness lies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When did you last add an entry to the list? Were you challenged by RedPenofDoom to provide two WP:RS which used the word "unusual" (or a synonym)? I was suggesting a narrowing of the definition of the word "unusual". Surely, contributors should be expected to read instructions given for valid inclusion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do hope that wasn't a personal attack, please recall the policy; the question at the start of your entry is not relevant. I understand the wish to narrow the criteria, but it is not feasible in this case. The instructions as written are so vague that they are probably being complied with almost 100%, and the criteria cannot be tightened because "unusual" is intrinsically subjective. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which part of my comment could be construed as "a personal attack"? Surely the term "unusual" coud be defined, and is defined in some fields, with regard to a categorisation by strict pecentage of occurrence? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see another editor is also finding your conduct uncivil. I meant, asking when I added an entry - it's not relevant. "Unusual" can be redefined as much as anyone likes, it will not solve the problem. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why my reply to you above is "uncivil"? I think it was far easier for anyone, you and me included, to add items to this list over a year ago. User:TheRedPenOfDoom has expended a great deal of time and energy in trying to tighten up the threshold, Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "i worked so hard" is not a valid rationale, and given all the hard work the fact that there has been no improvement of its encyclopedic and objective standards for criteria are actually more proof that it is an unworkable premise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank you personally for all the hard work you've done there, RPoD. It's made a big improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Indiscriminate and unmanageable listcruft. Inclusion criteria are and will always be purely subjective. ANY death can be described as "unusual", and the use of that word by a journalist even in a reliable source is nothing more than a personal opinion, almost always based on ignorance. Whether a particular death has been described by someone as "unusual" is purely trivial and not at all encyclopedic, jsut like calling something "cool" or "funny". Furthermore, having read through all of the previous AfD's, I have never seen an argument that doesn't boil down to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSINTERESTING. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that all deaths are equally unsual and that it's mere ignorance to pretend otherwise? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is very incivil of you to attempt to put words in my mouth and create a strawman argument. I gave my reasons for why the article should be deleted. They do not need elaboration, nor will I provide any. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was trying to understand your argument. I still am. I'm sorry if you find that "very incivil". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also read back through all the previous AfDs. It seems editors now simply see articles which are merely "interesting", "captivating", "useful", "amusing" or "quirky" as unencyclopedic rubbish that should be stamped out. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - we had a similar case with Exotic weaponry (which was more accurately a List of exotic weaponry) - AFD here. Given different people have different understandings of the term "unusual", what might be unusual to some might be completely ordinary to others. Including that subjective adjective is always going to create problems. Stalwart 111  15:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * delete - as current the "criteria" lead to a completely indiscriminate and nonobjective collection of cruft. All efforts to actually try and find some type of consensus on criteria that might not be subjective are stonewalled and derailed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I had thought that your suggested criteria of two WP:RS sources describing any death as "unusual" (or a suitable synonym), and of holding what appeared to be "likely candidates" which lacked suitable sources in s separate holding area, were very good steps in the right direction. I did not realise that these informal agreements had been "stonewalled and derailed". It's begining to look like, even if the objective bases of this article could be improved and fornalised, many editors think it's not worth the effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You and I had begun coalescing towards something like that as a test run to see if it would indeed be feasible, but there was no sign that any of the others were at all open to agreeing to accept that type of structure and definition. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The movement to the "holding pen" had nothing to do with any agreement or not about list criteria - it was just basic WP:V and WP:OR. People were mad that content that didn't even meet basic policy for content was being removed, and so the "second chance" step was added. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But still a perfetly good practical idea that has its merits. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Utterly subjective inclusion parameter. People jumping to their death off the World Trade Center after it was hit by a suicide attack? That was unusual and those were deaths. Oh, what about that guy that jumped out of an airplane with a camera to film skydivers but forgot to strap a parachute on himself? Definitely unusual and another death. Then again, there are people that get crushed on sidewalks every now and then by drivers having a medical emergency. That's unusual and those are deaths, each one. Oh, but you say, that's not all that unusual, because it happens frequently, even though each situation is different. So it's not that unusual. Or is it. This is basically a rag-bag trivia category, not an encyclopedic topic, and does not fit WP's pretty well established informal standard that lists must be limited in nature with coherent inclusion criteria. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, most people would not really see "unusual" as a very "encyclopedic" word. I'm not denyimg that the word can be problematic. It just seems a shame that most of those here recommending to delete seem wholly unaware of, or at least give no credence to, the sincere and prolonged efforts to work towards basing the article more soundly on objective criteria. I wonder also how many wanting deletion have ever contributed or even wanted to contribute to the article. Or maybe I'm being "uncivil" again for even wondering this. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The claim that this is difficult to define exactly is not a reason to delete because many or most topics have this character. For example, see List of rivers by length.  This is the sort of information that is routinely found in reference works but, as our article explains, there are many problems of definition and there is not even an exact definition of a river, as opposed to a creek or stream.  The test for such a list is not whether it is difficult or not but whether, per WP:LISTN, other reliable media have made such lists.  If they have then we are in good company and we can use those other lists as a model and source.  Now the topic of strange or unusual deaths has been covered by other people and here's a selection of sources which prove it:
 * 1) Strange Deaths
 * 2) Curious and Unusual Deaths
 * 3) Mysterious Deaths and Disappearances
 * 4) The Fortean Times Book of Strange Deaths
 * 5) The Fortean Times Book of More Strange Deaths
 * 6) Strange Deaths: More Than 375 Freakish Fatalites
 * 7) Strange Inhuman Deaths
 * 8) Curious Events in History
 * 9) Dreadful Fates
 * 10) Daft Deaths and Famous Last Words
 * The ease with which one can find substantial sources and the repeated keeping of the topic in previous nominations demonstrate that this is very much a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTAGAIN. Warden (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, do you really think List of rivers by length is a comparable article? Length is definitive, not subjective. There is an important caveat in that article - "Even when detailed maps are available, the length measurement is not always clear." - which is obviously true, but the distinction there is the different methods of calculation and arguments about whether to include tributaries or not. It's not List of interesting rivers or List of awesome lakes, both of which would be based on a personal opinion of what it interesting or awesome, just like this article relied on a subjective opinion of what is unusual. For example, the article includes a fellow from the 16th century who shot himself with his own bow and arrow. That would be unusual by today's standards (when accidental bow deaths would be rare) but the modern equivalent (misadventure involving a firearm) is fairly common and I would venture to suggest misadventure with a bow and arrow would have been more common when the weapons themselves were more common. Stalwart 111  02:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I gotta agree with Stalwart. The two aren't comparable.  Length is a defined characteristic.  Better comparisons to list of rivers by length would be "List of people who were assassinated", "List of people who were poisoned", "List of people who died in auto accidents", etc  p  b  p  00:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The rivers are far more debatable and variable. A river is a fractal and so its length depends upon the length of your measuring stick.  And a river keeps changing its course and varies with the rainfall.  As Heraclitus famously said, "You cannot step twice into the same river; for other waters are continually flowing in."  Deaths, on the other hand, are quite well-recorded and regulated by means of death certificates, coroner's courts, health statistics, &c.  The case of the archer is sourced to 10 strange ways Tudors died.  That source is the BBC, which is a byword for reliability, and they based the article upon the work of a professional historian who researched coroner's reports of the 16th century.  Such a source is an excellent one for this purpose and your personal opinion of the manner of death is not acceptable because I suppose you are not a professional historian or reputable media organisation.


 * This article has existed for nearly 10 years now and has been tested at AFD many times before. I have looked at it myself more than once because it is featured at WP:UNUSUAL.  It seems quite stable and the entries from antiquity are literally classic.  For example, the case of Draco, who was smothered by the cloaks of well-wishers, was reported originally by Plutarch and has been included in many encyclopedia.  He is the lawyer from whom we get the word draconian and a draconian punishment is one which is too severe.  Deleting this article after so many years of effort and after so many editors have expressed a desire to keep it would be draconian. Our deletion policy explicitly says "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."  It suggests that blocking is an appropriate punishment for such disruption.  That would be draconian too but I can see some sense in it as it is clearly quite discouraging and damaging to the project to have long-standing, substantial, good-faith work based upon reliable sources treated in this way.


 * Warden (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * bringing up multiple publications from the Fortean Times to support any position of "notable" does not help your cause. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Fortean Times specialises in coverage of the bizarre and unusual and so is an appropriate source. The fact that it has multiple volumes of this stuff extracted from its periodical demonstrates the notability of the concept.  That's what notability means - that the topic has been noticed and written about. Warden (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously I'm not a, "professional historian or reputable media organisation", though it wouldn't matter if I were. I'm not suggesting the event didn't happen and I agree the account itself is reliably sourced (and I agree with your assessment with the BBC as a reliable source). My issue is with the subjectivity of unusual, just as my issue was with the subjectivity of exotic in the AFD I cited. The article you cite says it all, as far as I'm concerned - there were 56 such bow-related accidental deaths in the same coroner's records. Such that it doesn't even seem uncommon, let alone unusual. I'll leave addressing arguments about article age or popularity with readers to others. Stalwart 111  08:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The BBC found the incident strange and it is then not subjective for us to summarise this independent and reliable opinion. You do not, I trust, dispute that words such as unusual, strange and bizarre may be considered equivalent for this purpose? Warden (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is equivalency, sure, but I think you might have stumbled onto the problem. The source seems to suggest that accidental bow-related deaths were not unusual, though that particular case was "strange". We've included it in an article of unusual deaths, despite the contradiction. It's probably not the only item in the list with the same issues. There's an entry about a woman who died from exposure to carbon tetrachloride, a chemical dangerous enough to be banned two decades later. And another about a case of immurement (not unusual, to my knowledge) but because the victim was a prince, it made the list. It was perhaps unusual for princes to die that way, but the death itself doesn't seem unusual. Stalwart 111  09:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My God, that's a spooky photograph at the immurement article - thanks for the link. This is what we're trying to do in the project - provide information in an accessible way through a variety of links and lists.  We do not have to be mathematically exact because this is impossible for most topics, especially in the humanities - perfect is the enemy of good.  So long as it's fairly clear what the reader is being given and good sources are provided then we are achieving our goal.  And note that categories are far from perfect too, as the recent fuss about the list of American novelists showed.  We need lists and categories to help us navigate this mountain of information.  There will always be difficulties of classification and completeness but imperfection is explicitly allowed by policy. Warden (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is, isn't it? Just horrible. Yeah, look, I get exactly where you're coming from and the argument that we're here for the readers strikes a chord with me. But I'm also conscious that we're not Ripley's Believe It or Not! or the Darwin Awards. Popular ≠ encyclopaedic, in my view. List of traps in the Saw film series and List of big-bust models and performers were among our most popular "missing" articles with 2000+ hits per day to redlinks. The readers want sex and death? I'm shocked! Stalwart 111  10:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is quite populist and that's one reason it has been so successful. It is explicit policy that "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics."  DYK has a believe-it-or-not style which is deliberately intended to draw readers in.  We regularly have curiosities as Featured Articles such as the Tichborne case, Icelandic Phallological Museum and the green children of Woolpit.  We have plenty of dull stuff too and there's room for it all.  By mixing the two, we season our educational content which is useless if no-one reads it.  By browsing this list, readers will be exposed to content about ancient philosophers and pankratiasts; archers and aristocrats.  How else are you going to encourage readers to read about people like Philitas of Cos, who studied his arguments so intently that he wasted away and starved to death?  Time for lunch! Warden (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to see we still have articles for Ripley's Believe It or Not! and the Darwin Awards. Maybe the public think Wikipedia articles are more reliable or believable than the material at those two places? Do you honestly think that having this one article in some way devalues or contaminates he other 4,256,787? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, and I don't think I suggested it has a relative impact on the value of other articles. I think there is value in covering the stories/events themselves (well, most of them - some of them are badly sourced BLP violations) but this list, with its difficult to define criteria, is a problem. For the Colonel - I'm fine with curiosities (hell, I've helped write about plenty of them) but I have an issue with lists and other things that rely on personal interpretation or opinion or, in this case, a lack of understanding about the commonality of some things. I had exactly the same problem with this AFD where the article was built on "reliable sources" (major newspapers, magazines, etc) that nonetheless were simply speculating on who might get the gig. In that instance, uninformed personal opinion (even from otherwise reliable sources) wasn't enough. But I'll make the point here that I made there. The entries in this list are based on someone's opinion that the death was unusual. If I can find a reliable source of equal weight that says immurement was usual and thus Sado's death was not unusual, can I remove that entry from the list? If I can demonstrate (with RS) that carbon tetrachloride exposure caused enough deaths for it to be banned (it did and it was), can I remove Margo Jones' death on the basis that hers was simply one of many and not at all "unusual"? Can I remove Breitbart if I can show that while his injury might have been silly, a death in the 1920s from blood poisoning would have been far from "unusual"? You see what I'm getting at, right? Stalwart 111  01:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One might dispute particular entries but that's not a reason to delete. I've checked out the case of Prince Sado.  His death by being encased in a rice chest until he suffocated was the only incident of its kind in the 500 year history of that dynasty.  The king improvised this because ordinary execution would have reflected badly upon his dynasty and the prince refused to commit suicide.  I see good sources describing it as unusual and so it qualifies. Other people may have been killed in a similar way in other places but that's ok because we are not claiming that these deaths are unique .  Where a form of death has happened repeatedly but is still reported as unusual in some way, then it would make sense to link to an article about the method of death and give some notable case as an example.  My favourite from WP:UNUSUAL is execution by elephant! Warden (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite agree, Colonel. But maybe you're ignoring the elephant in the room Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's funny. Stalwart 111  10:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of that dynasty... that's kind of the problem. These aren't necessarily "unusual deaths". They are (in many cases) ordinary deaths that happened to unusual (famous) people. We could just rename it, List of famous people who (unusually) died in ways normally reserved for common folk? Problem solved! Ha ha. Stalwart 111  10:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Praise by Time magazine
 * I found this on the talk page:


 * So that's the Time magazine selecting this particular article as especially worthy of praise on Wikipedia's 10th birthday. That's quite an accolade.  Can any of the nay-sayers produce a reliable source which condemns the article and suggests that it should be deleted?  Warden (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see "encyclopedic" among those acolades. Or anything even remotely similar. Just WP:ITSINTERESTING. Sorry, but that's all that your arguments boils down to. We're not here to provide entertainment. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the word "entertainment" either. The actual words they use are "fascinating" and "unforgettable".  What do you think they'd call it if they found that this had been deleted?  As for WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, that's an argument to avoid.  And there are actually numerous encyclopedia about death and dying. Warden (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note also that, not just mainstream media, but also the general readership quite like this article as it seems to get over a million hits each year. A tiny number of nit-picking naysayers should not be allowed to disrupt this. Warden (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * again, "it's popular!" and "the fans like it" are not reasons why we have encyclopedia articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The point here is not that I like it but that Time Magazine does. When an article reaches this level of acceptance and reference, we have a duty to maintain it.  Deleting the article would cause link rot for sites which reference it.  Link rot is a big problem for us and we should not contribute to it. Warden (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * rofl - i think i missed it when the Pillars and Wikipedia charter were amended to include part of our duty as an encyclopedia to keep external site's links live. Can you point me to that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (edit conflict) I'm surprised people want to delete one of the top 5000 articles on WP. This entry has been viewed 388,358 times in the last 90 days!! --  Hillbillyholiday talk 09:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an invalid argument and should be ignored. You don't keep something based on the number of hits it gets.  p  b  p  00:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow me to expand. I typed a rather long reply, but accidentally clicked the window shut and lost my wall of text (It was so interesting and informative, not to mention hugely entertaining, but unfortunately, since it has been deleted, you will just have to take my word for it).
 * To help keep it brief, I shall (for the first time ever) use some of the bewildering array of acronyms and abbreviations which we have on offer here at WP:


 * WP:RECENT, WP:UNENCYC, WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDLI = WP:Essays and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (needs acronym)


 * WP:Commonsense > WP:IAR? > WP:IAR = WP:5 = WP:Policy


 * Perhaps this is all a cunning joke, and WP:AfD actually stands for WP:April Fools Day in this case? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Typical case of "hey, let's nominate something I don't like again and again till it goes away". As clarified above, the concept of "unusual death" is notable, well sourced and well set in stone by reliable sources. I fully agree with Colonel Warden above, especially in the "perfect enemy of the good" problem: if we either have absolutely undisputable criteria or remove the article, we end up with basically no category or no list. The Time article and this AfD, juxtaposed, shows how much the average AfD regular is far removed from the readers they should think about. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that people default go to Wikipedia for things that are not encyclopedic does not alter the fact that we are an encyclopedia and WP:NOT Ripley's Believe it or Not and we shouldnt cater to people coming here for the wrong things just because its traffic.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "not encyclopedic" is a circular non-argument, basically amounting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Entire books are made on the topic, so it's hardly unnotable nonsense. Also I find it incredibly arrogant that you can decide what are the "right" and "wrong" things people should look up on Wikipedia. I think we should serve our readers, not be their patronizing gatekeepers between "right" and "wrong" knowledge. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * entire libraries can be filled with books of pictures of naked women. that doesn't mean that we should have "Naked Woman of the Day" article just because it would be very popular and highly trafficked. And it wasnt me that created WP:NOT, it was the community long before I started and has been sustained by wide community consensus. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But WP:NOT has little to do with this discussion. I am not saying that popularity alone is an inclusion criteria. I am saying (1)that this is a notable subject covered by lots of sources, and as such it deserves a place by our policies and guidelines (2)that this particular subject seems to be considered by the readers (including highly reputable readers like the Time magazine) one of our highlights, and this, while not being alone a criteria for keeping, should still be kept in mind when we do these debates. That is, whenever we decide to keep or remove an article, we should also think: Is this a good decision for our readers? -- Cycl o pia talk  15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * NOT is certainly relevant to this discussion. Having a source is only one of the requirements for having an article. Being encyclopedic, as NOT points out, is another. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What actually NOT says is: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" - Good. And in fact, "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" is what this list is. There is nothing in WP:NOT against this article, unless perhaps you conflate "what I personally think does not belong in my Platonic idea of encyclopedia" with "things that obviously should never be in an encyclopedia, like original research or blogs"-- Cycl o pia talk  19:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What WP:NOT also actually says is "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Therefore, there are certain things that Wikipedia is not." and "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely because it is true or useful.... Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like evidence in support of keeping. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cyclopia, this is not a case of "hey, let's nominate something I don't like again and again till it goes away", and thanks for the heaping helping of ABF. I knew that this had been nominated for deletion before, but I didn't check to see that it had been nominated *four times*. I saw only the first one (which I encountered by chance), and was utterly unconvinced by the "keep" arguments, some of which are not considered viable answers any more. (Remember that that first AFD was seven years ago, and inclusion standards have changed since that time.) While the current version of the article is fully sourced (unlike the version which went through AFD in 2006), some of the sourcing is dodgy, and regardless of how many people read this or find it fascinating (I do), the scope of the article is subjective. There are plenty of deaths listed that I don't find to be particularly unusual, and there are deaths which I do find unusual which are not listed (or in some cases have been removed). "Unusual" can't be quantified, and a reporter using the value judgement of "unusual" in his or her prose does not make it so.  Horologium  (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why fall into your own trap so easily, Horologium, and expect us to do likewise? No one is interested what you personally think of the entries. We're interested in what WP:RS sources say about them. We are also not interested in whether what a reliable reporter says is true, only in the fact that they have said it. If you think references are "dodgy", thenwhy not suggest moving an entry into the holding area until more or better refs can be found. If they can't be found, it will stay out of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep If you have a problem with any of the entries discuss it on the talk page. Reliable sources have been found that call these things "unusual" deaths.   D r e a m Focus  01:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * People have a problem with a good number of the entries - for me, it's probably about 1/2 of them - and with the subjective inclusion criteria for the rest, so the article is being discussed here. Reliable sources are also available that suggest many of the deaths are not unusual at all and many of the entries seem to have been included only because the person involved was famous, not because their death was particularly unusual. Stalwart 111  02:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 270 BC: Philitas of Cos, Greek intellectual, is said by Athenaeus to have studied arguments and erroneous word usage so intensely that he wasted away and starved to death. British classicist Alan Cameron speculates that Philitas died from a wasting disease which his contemporaries joked was caused by his pedantry.

-- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How ridiculous very unusual. Obviously complete fiction. How could anyone waste hours and hours arguing over pedantic word useage and nit-picking trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A popular and highly encyclopedia entry, as per the abundance of secondary on the subject.   Im not seeing any merit in the case for deletion on OR grounds. There's no such thing as terminal recentism. WP:RECENT issues can be sorted by adding historical perspective.  As for subjectivity,  subjective judgment is always needed to build articles. A great many topics have so much written about them in reliable sources that they're effectively limitless. Our policies help, but ultimately its the  subjective judgment of editors that determine what makes it into an article.  It's a shame we don't have an inverse equivelent of 'salt', which would let us prevent further time wasting nominations of this article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocks have been suggested. But apparently these would be draconian, not salt. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * :-), I guess fire and salt can be left to deletionists. I thought about adding Lot's wife , but there's just too many unsightly tags. At least the bright side of this AfD is that a keep close will mean the concerns have been rejected by the community, so all the unwarranted tags can be removed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with nom. and first commenter. The inclusion criteria "unusual deaths" cannot be defined in any reasonable way; as such the list can only be upheld by consistent violation of WP:OR. It does not surprise me that such a list gets many clicks as people are naturally drawn to the peculiar, sensational and bizarre; list is still not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that the use of strict statistical definition would lead to a rather large article: "An unusual event is an event that has a low probability of occurring. (Typically, but not always, it has a probability less than 5%.)" e.g. . Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article informs and educates, and therefore is of encyclopedic value.  It may not be particularly useful for readers who know, in precise detail, exactly what they are looking for, but - as others have said or implied - it is precisely the sort of article that brings casual readers, including children and teenagers, into Wikipedia.  It's a springboard for them to learn more.  It's vastly more valuable to society, in that respect, than thousands if not millions of other articles that are only of interest to tiny groups of people.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

section break

 * comment does User:Martinevans123 intend to reply to every single delete vote as per WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he does. Or perhaps he wants a discussion. Did he reply to yours? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC) "If many editors have replied but your comments take up 50% of the text, you are likely bludgeoning" ?
 * perhaps you should try to less to dominate this AfD, it is very obvious to me. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own" LibStar (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He's probably hoping for a few more bludgeoned to death, no doubt. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC) ... but don't worry, he's not going to conradict you.

So you admit you've engaged in WP:BLUDGEON? Or will you not actually answer the question directly ? 13:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Naturally I refuse to waste anymore more space with an answer. Please feel free to transfer your scolding to my Talk Page. Did you have any views on the deletion of the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC) p.s. I dont actually work for the Holy See.
 * Sigh. I still haven't been badgered by TheRedPenOfDoom yet, I'm feeling quite left out. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 14:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If any editors feel too intimidated to vote, they're welcome to email me and let me post their votes for them. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Popular entry, verifiable, can we block future AFD's? This is beyond a joke. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "popular" is not a criteria. and "verifiable" is merely a minimal threshold criteria : "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Badger -- Hillbillyholiday talk 13:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is very useful for projects on deaths and ways of dying. Most of the criticism about this article comes from where the sources come from and what can be catergorized as an unusual death. It doesn't matter! As long as this page is monitored well, it can be useful and informative. Surviving 4 AfD's is very impressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Slacker 123 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 19 June 2013 — Rich Slacker 123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This article has over 150 sources, and the topic has been covered in several books, as mentioned earlier in this AFD. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * you would be more accurate in stating "it has over 150 footnotes" - if you actually look at the sources you will likely find like i did that the overwhelming majority miserably fail to be anything close to a reliable source, and those that are reliable sources generally fail to actually call the incident "unusual" and are merely window dressing covering up WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep most of the concerns in the nomination are simply not valid reasons for deletion. WP:RECENT is an essay, and even if the list is biased towards recent deaths that's not a valid reason to delete it. If the article is primarily sourced to unreliable sources that is likewise not a reason to delete it, unless there are no reliable sources on the topic at all. Yes, deciding what constitutes an "unusual death" has a large element of subjectivity, but we can largely avoid problems by pushing the determination of "unusual" to the sources, in a similar way to List of films considered the best. It is clear that there are a very large number of sources listing people who have died in unusual circumstances, and I should point out that most of the sources cited by this page report the circumstances of the person's death because it is considered to be unusual. Hut 8.5 19:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR unless there's an applicative rule for 'unusualness' and each of the list items is checked against it. Also remove items which contain medical information where there is no indication that there was an autospy or coronial inquest (or similar). Stuartyeates (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible delete: What the Sam Hill is a "usual" death? We have several lists devoted to well-defined types of "unusual deaths", but having a list that can never be exhaustive (even for bios with Wikipedia articles) and has no real defined criteria is completely against policy/guidelines.  The hit count of the article is not an argument  p  b  p  00:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For the more usual types of death, see common causes of death. Warden (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not establish criteria? Since when did any list at Wikipedia have to be exhaustive or get deleted? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:58, 21 June 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.