List of unusual deaths

List of unusual deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The fifth nomination came in 2013 with a result of "no consensus", and a sixth was closed just a few days later for being too close to the previous one (poor reasoning, IMO). I agree with the rationales of the previous ones: the subject of "unusual death" is inherently subjective. Even if one source calls a death "unusual", by whose standards is it so? This list is also heavily slanted towards recent deaths.

Looking at the "keep"s in the last AFD, I see "It's notable because it gets hit a lot", "It's only getting AFD'd because the nominator doesn't like it", and other invalid "keep" rationales. The subject of "unusual death" may be semi-notable (such as the Darwin Awards), but to have a list of "unusual deaths" is entirely trivial and totally dependent on the whims of journalists and writers. Most of the recent examples don't really seem to even say outright that they're unusual, either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the 7th nomination or the 10th? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: Seventh. A few prior noms didn't follow naming conventions and had to be moved. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how long since the last one? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that it was on 25th June. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete inherently subjective, no actually objective criteria have been able to be agreed upon in more than a year of discussion. fails Wikipedia:LIST#Listed_items and WP:IINFO. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I find your position quite difficult to understand, RedPen. You expend a great deal of effort in curating and improving this article. But you then remove many items on the basis of your own unsupported and subjective analysis. You then berate other (unnamed) editors for not wanting to improve the article. Yet, less than a day later, you vote to delete it (as you did in the RfD before last). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if my analysis to remove is "subjective", please show me how the position to include is any less "subjective"? without objective criteria the list fails basic requirements for a list article - that readers and editors know what should or should not be included. And since my last !vote to delete, there has not been any indications that my concerns raised then are going to be able to be addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete inherently subjective, fails WP:IINFO. While a fascinating list, this is ultimately unworkable, as we don't have reliable sources that make sure determinations based on some sort of reasonable criteria. In addition, many of the entries are about entities for which we don't even have articles, making it WP:TRIVIA. The current rough consensus to simply use the consensus of editors here to determine if a death is usual or not smacks of WP:OR and selection bias of the particular set of editors who happen to haunt this page. It's time for this list to go, or at least to have another discussion about deleting it. I'd be fine with "userfying" to Wikiproject death and let them keep it out of article space.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • um, where did you find that "rough consensus"? We've been asking for reliable sources which call the death "unusual" or some similar synonym. And we have for quite some time now - ask TRPoD. Why should all the "entities" have a wikipedia article? Only wiki-notables die in unusual ways? Who are these haunty editors who have a "selection bias"? and what is that bias exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are reliable sources confirming each entry on the list. How many times do we have to go through the same AFD? "List_of_unusual_deaths has been viewed 247375 times in the last 90 days." An article in Time magazine called Wikipedia's 10th Anniversary: 10 Unforgettable Entries mentioned this article as one of those entries. Dream Focus 18:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • about 1/4 of those "views" are mine removing inappropriately added content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Haha, so that's about 687 views a day for you then, RedPen? i.e. about two every minute of every hour of every day, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of times it has been viewed is, unfortunately, not a valid reason. If wikipedia had kept Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_with_D-cup_or_larger_breasts then I'm sure that would have been viewed rather frequently as well. Yes, RS confirm each entry, but we don't have RS to confirm the LIST as a whole, nor the inclusion criteria for same. As such, each of these deaths can be reported in the appropriate place, but to bring them all together and say "These are unusual" and "These other deaths are not" smacks of OR, no matter how you slice it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, so all WP lists have to have their own WP:RS to confirm their notability? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Time magazine covered the subject didn't they? A notable magazine with over three million customers buying it each month, talked about the list. Its not original research if the reliable sources call it unusual or a word that means the same. Dream Focus 18:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a reputable source citing Wikipedia WP:CIRCULAR fails basic sourcing requirements and WP:N notability requirements. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe time to scrap this too, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody actually have a link to the Time content about the list? Time apparently didnt care enough about it to keep it from getting hijacked by getty images -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) so that people can actually verify exactly what Time said and in what context, 2) that even within the scope Time, the comment whatever it was was just filler that they dont care about and not an actual substantive article or recognition, like the Time Person of the Year designation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So when did this vile editorial intrusion start? It must be a right little earner? Anyone might think that Time was a WP:RS!! Martinevans123 (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC) ("cheers, T-PROD")[reply]

1) Having the Wikipedia article rather than the topic itself isn't exactly screaming "this is notable".

2) Time has probably run hundreds of articles that feature interviews with run-of-the-mill Americans. They certainly aren't going to get Wikipedia articles.

In short, just because it's covered in a single Time article doesn't mean run out and create an article on it (WP:ROUTINE) pbp 01:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information that just happens to be well-sourced. The sources, however, frequently do nothing to identify the deaths as unusual, only that they happened. The selection criteria is based entirely on original research, and the scope of the article does nothing but encourage it. A less subjective title and scope would help substantially. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Anything found on the list that didn't have a reliable source calling it weird, unusual, bizarre, or strange, got deleted already. Dream Focus 18:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I would have thought so, but I found quite a few just by randomly clicking on the sources and reading them. One was in a "news of the weird" roundup, which makes it debatable. Others were just straight-up news stories that never, to my satisfaction, labeled the death as anything more than simply notable. the case of the poison umbrella, for example, is subjectively unusual, but there's nothing in the article to indicate that it warrants inclusion in the list. If this is what the article looks like after a major cleanup, I think WP:TNT is called for. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I easily fixed the entry with a reference to a Guardian article calling it a strange death. [1] Its very easy to search for reliable sources for these issues, by Google news search for the name of the person something that clarifies its them and not someone else by that name, and then various key words. umbrella strange OR bizarre OR unusual OR unique OR rarely OR weird "Georgi Markov" Simple. Any problem found is thus easily fixed. Dream Focus 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So is that delete it or change it? Why are WP:RS sources which describe a death as "unusual" WP:OR? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 18:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is appropriate to include in Wikipedia a list of "unusual deaths" each of which has references which state that the deaths are by unusual means.Notability of the subject is shown by numerous reliable sources which have compiled lists of unusual deaths (their judgment, not the judgment of Wikipedia editors). This is not original research. Since the persons share the feature of dying unusual deaths, the list is not indiscriminate.This article satisfies notability and verifiability. As Dream Focus pointed out above, this article with 80,000 or so views per month which was praised by Time magazine seems to be encyclopedic. This beats any "IDONTLIKEIT" arguments that say it should be deleted because it's "trivial." Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (per Wikipedia:Five pillars). Such a list may not be everyone's cup of tea, but they have been included in popular almanacs,and in sites such as Snopes, If someone is looking for information about unusual deaths (man killed by coyotes) they can a referenced list here, in an almanac function. If they want the geographic coordinates of some census entry hamlet with population 12, they can find it here, via the gazetteer function. If they want the bio of some professional athlete who played one game, they can find it here, with Wikipedia functioning as a sports almanac. Edison (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I missing something, or does this article lack any reference to "strange", "unusual", "bizarre", or "weird" deaths? The fact that it was included seems to substantiate claims that the selection criteria are based on what editors find unusual, rather than what reliable sources find unusual. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I corrected that and linked to another news article calling it a "strange death" [2] Dream Focus 19:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (EC)References exist which call the murder of Markov with a ricin pellet, likely fired from a compressed air gun in an umbrella "unusual" or "bizarre.""Cold War Radio: The Dangerous History of American Broadcasting.." says "Piccadilly versus the Tramp: The Murder of Georgi Markov In her wildest dreams Agatha Christie couldn't have conjured a more bizarre murder and a more ..." The Seattle Times called it " a famous, bizarre Cold War murder." Vancouver Sun called it "one of Cold War's most bizarre killings. The Guardian called it"" the strange death of Mr Georgi Marko" The juvenile nonfiction book "Strange but true" includethe Markov assassination with other deaths the book author considers unusual or strange. The Atlantic included it in a "survey of strange assassination tech." Edison (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As with most other articles, anyone is free to add whatever they want. It's the responsibility of more experienced editors to assess whether such additions are appropriate and whether they meet any agreed criteria for inclusion. That's essentially how the whole encyclopedia works? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the whole problem. I've looked over the talk page, and the criteria for inclusion has wavered, changed, shifted, and even when people recently proposed items for deletion, there was debate on a per-item basis - so obviously the criteria are not as clear as they should be. The current consensus seems to be "If the experienced editors on the page agree it should be in, let it stay" - but those same editors weren't able to come to a clear consensus in the most recent RFC, at least not by my reading, and ultimately the best, most sane criteria that have been developed is the use of a synonym of the word "unusual" in a single news description of the event. This is all inherently subjective, and not encyclopedic; we have a lot of such lists in wikipedia space and I would support keeping it there, then we would have much less worries about sourcing issues/etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I entirely agree with you that criteria for inclusion in this list should not be subjective. I have argued previously for the application of strict statistical rigour - this is currently beyond the resources available to this project, it seems. But the fact that the current criteria might seem to be subjective is not a good reason to delete the entire article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the reason to delete it. Subjective criteria is a terrible reason to have a list, and violates the policy and guidance on such lists. The fact that no-one has been able to come up with strong, objective, usable criteria even after so many years, and the !keep votes are still talking about the fact that Time magazine wrote an article about it illustrate that the whole thing is WP:ILIKEIT. Well, by jones, I like it too, but it should not be in article space.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the inescapable and inevitable need for the application of some kind of statistical rigour, "at least one WP:RS which describes a death as unusual" seems to me to be quite "strong, objective and usable". Maybe this criterion should be supplemented with others, or else, at least, more rigorously enforced? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about sources in other languages? Do you think that the only unusual deaths are those reported in the western media, in the english language? Do we need to come up with a consensus-based set of terms in Hindi, Chinese, Swahili, and hundreds of other languages in order to accept "odd" deaths from the 4 corners of the world? "Unusual" is, by it's very nature, SUBJECTIVE - that is, up to the interpretation of the subject - when a newspaper article uses this term, it is itself a OPINION of the writer. Normally, such things are not a big deal, but when the single opinion of a single journalist (or, more specifically, that journalist using one of the words we agree with) is what makes or breaks a death entering this list, you're dealing with completely invented criteria. if there were, OTOH, an international organization devoted to cataloging deaths, and they had an international panel of experts that would choose the top 10 strangest deaths for the year, and many other sources parroted their lists and considered them good --- THEN we could have this list, based on theirs. But we don't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your point about other language reporting is very valid. And I agree the untutored opinion of a single journalist may be a problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How many times can/should one article face an AfD? The most recent one wasn't even six months ago! Don't take my word on it, Time magazine has commented on its encyclopedic status. Surely the article isn't perfect and changes to its criteria should be brought to the talk page.LM2000 (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that last one was on 25th June - exactly four months ago. It was opened 4 days after the previous one had been closed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  "Pitch till you win" is a great carnival game. It should not be a means for deleting encyclopedia articles. Consensus can change over time, but repeated deletion attempts close together in time can seem disruptive. Edison (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The topic of "Unusual deaths" in mass media may have some merit if properly referenced and kept from being turned into a list, but a completely subjective list is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  What makes this list "completely subjective"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the talk page shows there are basic criteria for inclusion, but that it changes every ten seconds depending on the arguments. There is never going to be a clear-cut "This is what gets included." decision, so completely subjective fits. TTN (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you show us one of those "ten second changes"? Why not simply make inclusion criteria clearer? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in over twelve months of work there has been no consensus and not even any progress on what any "clearer" inclusion criteria might be. in fact there have been people fighting over whether or not basic content polices such as WP:OR apply. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, delete articles because there have been "people fighting". I wonder what would be left. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between removing something that is volatile because it is a complicated subject compared to removing something that is volatile because there is no clear way to classify inclusion criteria in a manner that is going to satisfy more than one "faction." "Unusual" is subjective, even when editors try to have fairly specific key points for including them. It's a giant back and forth tug of war that is never going to end as people nitpick over fine details and specific deaths over and over. TTN (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comments Here is a selection of 'unusual' deaths:
  • He remains the only major league baseball player killed by a pitched ball.
  • becoming the first person ever to die in a railway accident
  • trampled by a wild bull.
  • attacked by a monkey
  • a mosquito bite on his face, which he cut while shaving, became seriously infected
  • was punched in the stomach by an amateur boxer.
  • Daghlian died of radiation poisoning,
  • collapsed and died between scenes of a live television play,
• There is nothing that holds these together. they are all unfortunate, most are accidents, but strange accidents happen all the time, and notions of "first" or "only" are rather ridiculous here - every day there is a "first person of (job X) to die via (reason Y) in (place Z)." But none of those methods of death could be described as incredibly rare; people are killed by thrown objects all the time, railway accidents happen frequently, animals often kill people, wounds get infected, boxers die, and people who work with nuclear materials often get sick and die. There's nothing that holds this list together except some judgement by some wikipedia editor or some tabloid newspaper that this death was "strange" or "unusual". Let Ripley's compile such lists, but it is fundamentally not encyclopedic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you show us your evidence that "strange accidents happen all the time"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you explain what you mean by "methods of death" and how this might differ from "circumstances of death"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you explain why you think the existence of this list is based on either "judgement by some wikipedia editor" or "some tabloid newspaper"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

did I hear somebody order WP:SOUP?

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did I hear somebody else order the other variety? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see [[3]]; there were ~120k accidental deaths in 2010, including 16,000 other/nonspecified nontransport accidents and their sequalae. By the criteria of this list, pretty much any accidental death could be framed as unusual - e.g. "He was the first Football captain in the town of X killed by running his car into a tree" or "She was the first grandmother killed by a washing machine in the state of Texas", etc. People can always find a way to make something into a unique story. The distinction between method and circumstances of death is a false one - a death is a death, and I don't agree with "suicide is normal, but suicide on webcam is not" - no, suicide is a tragedy, and the tragedy of suicide plays itself out in many many different ways - sometimes the person films themselves, sometimes they write a note, sometimes their body is found by their family, sometimes it's not found for months or years, there are ALWAYS unique circumstances coupled with the means of death that make each death unique.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there are no unusual deaths, because everyone dies when their heart stops, they stop breathing and their brain ceases to function? I don't think anyone is claiming that all accidental deaths are, by definition. unusual (even on the basis of a report by the "National Center for Health Statistics") - but I guess that depends on your definition of "accidental". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think there *are* unusual deaths, but my definition of unusual is different than yours, and your definition is different than the editor at the podunk times. For example, during the genocide in Rwanda, they killed people in all sorts of "unusual" and horrible ways - roasting babies in the fire, throwing people down into wells, boiling people alive in vats of oil, women being raped by logs, people being skinned alive, hacking them to death with machetes; soldiers captured by the viet cong were subject to all sorts of cruel and strange techniques of death as well, and the cartels in Mexico are currently coming up with all sorts of interesting ways and circumstances and methods to kill people. But if we were to start a catalog of all of those, it would be endless, as human creativity knows no bounds. I mean, one of the entries on the list is a guy who was struck by lightning, who had a premonition of being struck by lightning. Who cares!!?? I really think for me one of the biggest reasons to delete this list from article space is it is a bit disrespectful of the dead, by in a way poking fun at their manner of passing, and saying "Wow, this guy really bit the dust in an interesting or unusual way, let's catalog his death" - for those who have been slaughtered by the thousands by all manner of barbaric methods all over the world, this list is really trivializing death.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your argument on the basis of sentiment has been aired before, but not often. But an encyclopedia, or at least a statistical analysis which might form the basis for an encyclopedia, has no place for sentiment. I think your argument about what constitutes a war crime, however, is quite difficult to address. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you have no statistical analysis to back up any of the claims on this list. Lightning? Monkey attacks? Seriously? If you were to study the particular circumstances of any death, you would find coincidence, happenstance, near misses, and all sorts of other strange things that make that particular death unique. Some deaths are more unusual than others, that much is sure, but the inability of the collective editors of this list to define a clear line even after many years is evidence that it is ultimately a subjective list of mostly trivial interest, a random hodge-podge of stories one might collect from tabloids.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ken... nor is any such statistical analysis being claimed. This is suggested as an aspiration. But what is the scientific basis for "coincidence, happenstance, near misses, and all sorts of other strange things"? I'm not sure these things are quantifiable. The current "clear line" is simply this: "a WP:RS which describes the death as unusual". What's the continued obsession with "tabloids"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I think there may be a good case for excluding murders, else we get to this, where sourcing might be even more perilous. But are you aware of this little section? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - (1) Not an encyclopedic topic. (2) Indiscriminate list, based upon the utterly subjective definition of "unusual." (3) Entertainment cruft, like List of stupid criminals and List of cute kitten videos. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes, criminal kittens. Bring 'em on... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That was actually pretty funny. If we were judging arguments only by wit, I might change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think we're all intelligent enough to realise what constitutes an "unusual death". I see no problem whatsoever with this list as long as it confines itself to listing deaths that are clearly caused by unique or incredibly rare circumstances. Which, as far as I can see, it does. It's been nominated for deletion far too many times and it does smack of "we don't like it so we're going to carry on nominating it until we get the result we want" from a small number of editors. Hopefully they're hoping that eventually a nomination will get in under the radar and nobody will vote to keep it. Otherwise it's going to continue to result in no consensus and therefore continue to be kept. Time to knock these endless nominations on the head. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • you obviously havent been paying attention to the talk page where there is clear disagreement about nearly every item on the list and so your claim is based on an untrue premise to begin with, but in addition you do realize that by advocating "we are all intelligent enough to realize what constitutes" you are advocating for an overturning of at least one of the three core pillars for content WP:OR (if not two WP:NPOV) as well?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, sorry, none of that is true. In what way does what I said advocate the overturning of WP:OR? This article is not original research. It's a widely misunderstood (or at least misinterpreted) policy, sadly, but the page quite clearly states what is original research. This is not. And it doesn't violate WP:NPOV either, since the criteria for inclusion clearly state that a death must have been described as unusual by reliable sources. That is our usual criterion for inclusion of information in any article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors "knowing" what is "unusual" is the epitome of WP:OR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." (or else WP:V if there are not any sources used at all).-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the article specifies that the death must have been referred to as unusual in reliable sources. So where on earth does OR come in? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because to say something is "unusual" is original research and/or opinion, either by the WP editor or the source. People come to an encyclopedia for factual information, not someone's opinion. The article could be moved to its own website (unusualdeaths.com?) and the fans and the curious could find it there with no loss to anyone. BayShrimp (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obi said it best, in my opinion. I've often wondered about the reason for this list's existence, and now I know there is none. Perhaps I'm not intelligent enough to realize what an "unusual death" is, and I don't think it's our business to define "unique or incredibly rare circumstances"--and I don't want newspapers or blogs to define them for us. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • But blogs aren't allowed as sources here, just like in all other articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've always been on the fence about this list, but the points raised in this discussion – especially by Obi-Wan Kenobi – have convinced me that this list is unworkable; it's just not possible to come up with a clear, sensible, objective inclusion criteria. I like it, but it has to go. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. An article that generates a lot of interest outside Wikipedia and is of a much higher quality that many publications in the popular press. We actually "rely on newspapers" to decide for us what is notable all the time, just by it being reported. I don't see why the criteria for inclusion can't be adjusted, tightened, made clearer and applied more rigorously. And, as Obi-Wan Kenobi has made clear, there is still plenty of scope for discussion as to what unusual means in this context. I don't think it's satisfactory to simply silence that discussion by deleting the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • you are really going down the WP:ITSPOPULAR as your first criteria? Secondly, we rely on reliable sources to make determinations about content in their area of expertise, and their " reliability " is solely in their area of expertise. There is no evidence that Johnny reporter creating filler for the slow news day has any kind of expertise in the area of "unusual deaths" that we should be relying on his judgment as a reliable source for this subject in this article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a first criterion, it's an observation. I didn't realise that you knew Johnny so well. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Typical case of "hey, let's nominate something I don't like again and again till it goes away". The concept of "unusual death" is notable, well sourced and well set in stone by reliable sources. Lots of work has been going on to clarify the inclusion criteria and include only sourced entries. The Time article and this AfD, juxtaposed, shows how much some WP editors, in their myopic concept of "encyclopedicity", are far removed from the readers - and readers what editors should think about. --cyclopia^speak! 17:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the " concept of "unusual death"" that "is notable, well sourced and well set in stone by reliable sources" ? if you have an objective set in stone definition/application, I would love to see it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic clearly satisfies WP:LISTN, being covered in numerous sources such as:

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

This repeat nomination is blatantly disruptive per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Warden (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still citing Fortean Books as your reliable sources? hmm. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Fortean Times specialises in reporting the unusual and so seems to be a suitable source. And the point here is that we have many sources demonstrating the validity of the concept. These are produced by professional editors and publishers. This is what we look for in preference to personal opinion. Warden (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortean Times specializes in publishing on the paranormal as if it were fact. They are not a reliable source for anything but their own crackpot ideas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The classic Fortean phenomenon is fish falling from the sky. This seems to actually happen. I was reading just the other day about a woman who was stunned by a fish falling on her in the middle of London. If someone were to be killed in this way, this might well be considered unusual and the Fortean Times would be a satisfactory source for the matter. Warden (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure she was just hit on the head? she wasnt killed? she didnt slip on one of the fish and slide under a moving car? or have a caudal fin one of the fish slice her jugular and die? cause that would be unusual and we could add it to the list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unlikely... (and here's a suitable WP:RS sauce) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep popular article about a topic with abundant coverage in reliable secondary sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've waited to consider this matter and the potential merits of both deletion and retention, and I feel that this article should be retained in the encyclopedia. It passes WP:NLIST, because content within the article is verifiable from reliable sources. The topic itself is also notable, particularly since entire books are devoted to the topic of covering various unusual deaths.

 – Books that are entirely devoted to the topic include: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

 – Additional sources that provide: significant coverage of this topic include [13], [14], [15], [16]

This is a summary of sources; more are easily found and available. Regarding the notion of inclusion criteria in the article relative to what constitutes something that is "unusual", see the dictionary definition of the word "unusual" here from Oxford Dictionaries. Events that are definable as truly unusual is rather straightforward, in my opinion. This Oxford definition has been included in the article's lead, in hopes to clarify inclusion criteria for the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is that even your "reliable sources" DONT AGREE on what is an "unusual death". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and this one is just cribbed from the Wikipedia article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, yes, maybe we need a more historically-aligned archaeological analysis? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term reliable sources in quotes in the comment below my !vote appears to vaguely imply that the entirely reliable sources I listed are somehow not, for whatever reasons. Be assured, they are entirely reliable, though. Perhaps we can arrange a meeting of all the book authors I listed in my !vote and make a request for them to confer regarding their works? Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Additionally, the medical literature sources found by User:Cyclopia (listed below in the discussion), including these PubMed results for Unusual deaths provides very compelling evidence regarding the ability for content in this article to be verified. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont believe anyone has suggested that the article be deleted because we cannot find a reliably published source that says "this death was unusual" - Are you suggesting that the criteria be that: a medically knowledgeable source identifies the death as unusual? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#And finally... Recent discussion at the talk page shows that the community is unable to come to a consensus as to what the inclusion criteria for this list is. There's a good reason for that: there's no policy-compliant inclusion criteria that corresponds well to people's intuitive judgement as to what makes a reasonable candidate for this list. As best as I can tell, that's a result of our policies being centered around content that is suitable for an encyclopedia, while this topic is more or less suitable for Ripley's Believe It or Not. This article is not a part of an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 00:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this like discussing who to invite to the party? Some there seem to think that "this article is more trouble than it is worth". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOT#And finally... suggests that we avoid "terrible ideas" but there's no evidence that this page is terrible. It has existed for nearly 10 years now and, in that time, its reception seems to have been excellent. It gets a huge amount of traffic and when the external readership comments on it, it is to praise it, not to condemn it as terrible. The handful of nay-sayers who can't stand it seem quite unrepresentative of this general reception. Warden (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - you know that list is made of crap then inclusion criteria seems to be simply if enough editors currently active on talk page think that "This is a weird incident indeed". Just looked at entries for 1960s and it seems that because astronauts are relatively rare stuff, and their fatalities are even rarer, they all automatically qualify as "unusual". On other hand I don't see KAL007, seems like military shooting down passenger planes is now totally "usual" by wikipedia standards, good to know.--Staberinde (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We just need some cross-linkage with List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents and List of fatalities from aviation accidents using the {{main}} template. This is ordinary editing, not a reason to delete. Please see our editing policy. Warden (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• So that's what the inclusion criteria are then? And you think war deaths should be included? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How about deaths by atomic bomb? BayShrimp (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• statistically valid, I guess, but I think we'd need a policy on military action in general and war crimes in particular Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete As you know that list is made of crap. Sorry, take the sugar nips and cut the crap. Hafspajen (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that unusual crap or just the usual crap? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, I like you. Hafspajen (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: As usual, in deletion discussions (and in general, in all WP discussion), the real issue is not who is better at wikilawyering and policy-wonking (even if it is a funny online game, I agree). The real issue is: cui prodest - that is, who benefits from our decision -and what are such benefits? Do readers benefit from deletion of this article? Does the encyclopedia improve? Because it seems high profile sources think this article is one of the best of our encyclopedia, and it seems also that readers enjoy it, and it seems that all problems described by delete !votes are a matter of careful editing. I'd like to know what the deletion supporters think about this. --cyclopia^speak! 17:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. As I said in my delete vote I would like to see the list moved to its own website. Interested people would still get the fun of reading the list and perhaps adding to it. In my opinion what WP needs more now is to improve its reputation as a reliable source of serious, accurate information. More than publicity as a fun, cool, interesting website. BayShrimp (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To have "a reliable source of serious, accurate information" is a very laudable aim. But it would be a shame if nobody ever used it. Maybe it's a bit like the need for WP:CIVIL - we can plant thousands (or indeed millions) of seeds in this vast encyclopedic greenhouse, but if the climate isn't right, and there's not enough air and light getting in ... nothing will grow. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of WP:ATD implies that the material can be repaired. I submit that so long as the community cannot agree on policy-compliant inclusion criteria, it cannot.—Kww(talk) 20:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it did - material was included if sources called it "unusual" or a synonim of it. Nonetheless, even if the decision of inclusion criteria were a complex process, this wouldn't call for deletion. In any case this doesn't answer the question of what is the advantage to the project and/or the readers. --cyclopia^speak! 21:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only policy-compliant inclusion criterion, true. I certainly detect an undercurrent in the RFC that many editors (such as User:Dream Focus and User:Colonel Warden) find complying with policy to be excessively restrictive, which means the article will be a constant source of contention.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many others would you propose? Have you asked those two editors about that? What's your definition of "constant" exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Kww, when have I not complied with policy on this article? Kindly assume good faith and stop making vague and inaccurate accusations. Dream Focus 23:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to oblige. The lastest round of controversy on this article began when you proclaimed that the normal rules should be ignored so that the article could include anything editors thought was unusual.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I started a discussion to ask if the word "unusual" had to be used, or could we go by the definition of "unusual" instead. People had mixed opinions on that subject, whether it was original research to think for ourselves and discuss each entry in question on the talk page, or whether it was just common sense to talk it over and work out what was obviously unusual death, such as a man dying from eating cockroaches in a cockroach eating contest. Dream Focus 23:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The list is highly compliant with the relevant notability guideline, WP:LISTN, and seems to be much better in this respect than the various lists created by the nay-sayers. The process of maintaining the list seems to work well enough and is no more difficult than other high-traffic lists such as the list of Internet phenomena or list of emoticons. The only significant problem here is the disruptive repetition of nominations, which clearly violates our deletion policy. Nominating the same page again and again and again and again is a blatant abuse of process and it's time that violators were sanctioned as our policy suggests. Warden (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• back to classic WP:OTHERCRAP -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• So, lemme get this straight: The last time there was a consensus for keeping this was 2009, so it's safe from ever being nominated from deleted again? That's not right. Something that is closed as no consensus can be brought up again a few months later, particularly something that's as blatant a WP:NOT violation as this article. The only blatant abuse here is this article still existing. pbp 18:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And in what way has the article become so much worse than when the "no consensus" result was reached exactly four months ago? No-one was claiming "blatant abuse" at that result, were they? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• people were being more generous then. having seen no improvement, but rather a campaign for disimprovment, the label of "blatant" becomes more necessary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ah yes, I almost forgot... there will be RETRIBUTION!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• By its very nature, an "unusual death" is subjective. If John Doe calls a death unusual, it's factual to say that he said so. However, this article is presenting these deaths as if they are factually unusual. It's difficult enough to convince people to take Wikipedia seriously, and subjective topics like this make it even more difficult. The subjective selection criteria just make it even more frustrating. Even if we had a hardliner watching this article like a hawk, it would still be presenting the opinion of journalists as facts. When Roger Ebert says that a film is good, we write, "Roger Ebert liked this film." We don't write, "This is a good film." That's exactly what we're doing in this article. In List of films considered the best, we follow policy by simply stating facts: "Roger Ebert called this the best film ever made." "This film placed #3 in a poll by AFI." There's none of that in this article. Who does it benefit? It benefits Wikipedia itself. It reinforces the project's integrity and reputation as a neutral, reliable source of fact, not an purveyor of subjective trivia. And that's the best that I can state it. People may find it intriguing and interesting, but it's better suited to a blog entry than an encyclopedia entry. I'm sorry to disappoint the readers who enjoy this kind of material, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. People want to use the Commons as a free porn host, but we don't allow that. Sometimes you have to tell people, "No, that's beyond our scope and contrary to consensus as to what we want this project to be". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that an argument for renaming the article "List of deaths considered unusual", rather than deleting it? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"considered unsusual" by whom? There are as far as I know, no Roger Eberts of "unusual deaths." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an element of subjectivity in most of our topics because only mathematics has the logical purity to be defined in a completely rigorous way but there is still ambiguity and debate about the nature of proof. For example, you started the article cult film and maintain the list of cult films. But there is no exact definition of "cult", is there? For example, the Sound of Music is famously kitsch and the cinema club I belong to regularly shows this as sing-along event for which the audience come dressed in lederhosen and dirndls. But your list doesn't include this movie!? And the list only seems to include American movies. For example, it has 9½ Weeks but not Fellini's 8½!? Now we obviously shouldn't delete the list of cult films because it's clearly a concept that gets written about - books like Cult Cinema, for example. But the list needs some curating and this will have to be done in exactly the same way that we maintain the list of unusual deaths - by looking for sources which describe the entry as a cult film. Most lists and categories have to work like this because there's really no other way. The idea that there's a special problem with this particular list is false. Warden (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If nothing else, I think this marks the most civil conversation we've ever had, and that's definitely good. Yes, you make some very good points, and you'll see that I've struggled with these very issues (such as international scope) on the associated talk pages. I don't have any good answers for you, because I've not been able to come up with any, and I've been struggling with the burn-out associated with attempting to work on two major, time-consuming articles at once. Thus: two very promising yet frustratingly incomplete articles about cult films. I'm not convinced yet, but I take your point. There are definite parallels. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Editors can work out what to include or exclude through normal editing and consensus processes. Many things on Wikipedia are based on subjective value judgements including the entire notability rules process. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Disclaimer I just posted: "Interested people would still get the fun of reading the list and perhaps adding to it." I meant adding to it when they come across a report of an unusual death, not by their own. Just wanted to clear that up. :-) BayShrimp (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - for all the reasons I outlined in the last discussion. A good many of the deaths listed are not even unusual deaths (in their own context) including people dying from common infections, common means of execution and common chemicals. In many cases its the circumstances leading up to the person's death that might be described as unusual (though not especially), not the death itself. Should have been deleted the 1st time, let alone the 6th. The refrains of "but people like it!" are old and its not "wikilawyering" to highlight that the list is fundamentally flawed and inaccurate. Stalwart111 10:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder whether it is always possible to make a clear distinction between "circumstances" and "cause"? Are these two entities wholly separate and, if so, where does one draw the dividing line between them? Furthermore, does a person's notability make any contributuon to the notabiity of their death (but particularly if that death is deemed to be "unusual"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability of the people involved shouldn't make a difference. Either the death is unusual or it isn't. Including the ordinary death of an unusual (more notable than usual) person devalues the list - a good many deaths on that list were perfectly ordinary and routine deaths that just happened to involve notable people. This isn't Notable people who died. As I highlighted in the first discussion, the prince who was subject to execution by immurement. A perfectly ordinary means of execution in the context of his era. Only on the list because he was a prince (though, again, the execution of monarchs/heirs isn't historically unusual either). Then there are the entries that make no sense at all. Like the guy who swallowed a toothpick and died of an ordinary infection. And the list includes a picture of him like it was particularly unusual. How the f**k is that "unusual"? Ask any ER nurse - people swallowing stupid things is a perfectly ordinary reason for triage presentation and fatal infections like that were probably less unusual in that era than they are now. It's just a nonsensical mishmash of things that random journos on various slow news days decided were "unusual" without actually conducting basic research. All this list proves is that sources ordinarily considered reliable for their fact-checking might sometimes not be. Stalwart111 02:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point. But are you proposing to create a special sub-set of WP:RS - ones that we (or you, anyway) can believe? And is your argument sufficient for wholesale deletion of the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not really a "sub-set of WP:RS"; the normal rules of WP:RS apply and context is important. Really it's a matter of WP:WEIGHT - an article has been created on the basis of cherry-picked references that say this death and that death were unusual. But a good portion of those claims could be countered (and the claims of "unusual" dismissed) with equally strong (or stronger) references that dispute the original claim. As I asked in the last AFD, if I can find a source (hell, lets make it a WP:MEDRS source) to verify that particular infections were/are perfectly ordinary, can I remove those deaths from the list? The list is supposed to contain "unique or extremely rare circumstances of death" yet it includes a man executed on national television with a sword (now sadly quite common), several who died of heart attacks (isn't heart attack one of the most common causes of death according to the graph at the top of the list?), a man who died of a urinary tract infection, a lawyer who died as the result of misadventure with a firearm, a king who died of sepsis and a fellow who died from a snake bite. There's also 1,700 people in one entry who died at the same time - I think it's fair to say that being one of 1,700 people who died of the same thing at the same time isn't "unusual" even if what killed them was uncommon. The article has so many problems (most flowing from its basic premise) that I don't hold a lot of hope for it. If someone wants to pare it right back then we might have something worth considering. But for now... I see (on the talk page) that there was an effort to remove some entries but that effort seems to have become bogged down with "I like it/I think it's interesting" arguments. Stalwart111 11:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be worried about things that can be solved with editing and, as such, our policy requires to fix by editing, not by deleting. --cyclopia^speak! 11:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How exactly can " The article has so many problems (most flowing from its basic premise)" be fixed by normal editing? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What would be your numerical limit on group deaths? Death from atomic bomb has been suggested. Wouldn't we want to establish an annual global death-rate? Or else even determine the total number of people who have ever died? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll respond here to the some of the points made in the back-and-forth since my last comment. Part of the problem is that this has become an indiscriminate collection of facts, many of which don't comply with the list's own inclusion criteria. I don't think we need a numerical ceiling for common sense to tell us that if 1,700 people died of the same thing at the same time, none of those individual deaths are "unique" or "rare" (the list's own criteria). Given the total failure (though editing) to resolve any of the ways this fails WP:NOT, I can't see how we can justify keeping this. The list flies in the face of the project's goal to present accurate information to the reading public by instead presenting dishonest, weasel-wordy, easily-disproved claims (because the claim is subjective anyway) as verified fact alongside "medical" graphs. It's the worst kind of sideshow alley, Ripley's Believe It or Not!-style synthesis. The worst part is that a perfectly good article could probably be written about medically or statistically rare or uncommon deaths, with examples (as have whole books been written) but the best we can manage is this Western-world-centric, unscientific cabinet of curiosities. Stalwart111 04:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think "rare" means"? Does it not have a statistical basis? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It should have a statistical basis (even a non-statistical but clearly defined one would suffice) but it doesn't in the context of this article. "Rare" in this article is taken to mean "things I haven't heard of" or "things that seem uncommon" when even the most basic research would dispel either or both. If I were to arbitrarily apply a formulae it would at least include a provision that deaths from things verified as statistically common should definitively not be on the list (as being entirely contrary to the premise). We could start with the basics like not including entries that involve torture or execution so common and notable that we have articles on them, like scaphism or immurement (both are featured). If it's common-use enough for us to have a substantive article (beyond a WP:DICDEF) then I think it's fair to say that death resulting from such activity clearly shouldn't be considered "unusual". My first instinct would be that if the cause of death itself is blue-linked, it probably shouldn't on the list. Stalwart111 09:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't help feeling you are looking at these in terms of a taxonomy of causes that one might find in use by a coroner and saying that circumstances, or precedent environmental causes, are irrelevant. Such a taxomony is designed to have nothing "particularly rare" in it, isn't it? (Although statistically that might be a very different story). I think that's why we aren't "singng from the same hymn sheet" here. But am very glad that you are now looking for ways to improve the article instead of simply deleting it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, my heart is still beating and when it stops, I'm sure I won't make this list but I appreciate the sentiment. This is a list of deaths, not a list of amusing anecdotes that concluded with someone's death. The list itself includes taxonomy in the form of a table which highlights common causes of death, as if to say, "these are common but the following are not" but the subsequent list includes quite a few entries with causes of death featured in that table. That makes no sense at all. As I said earlier, some entries seem to be on the list only because the person who died was uncommon (statesman, king, etc). "Common death of an uncommon person" is a fundamental misreading of the "uncommon death" premise of the article. I think the premise of the article is unencyclopaedic, the sources trashy, the inclusion criteria flawed, the content contradictory, the effort level low (considering the effort put into "saving" it here) and the usefulness almost non-existent. But I'll respect consensus and if the best we can manage is that we finally resolve to cut this right back to something more intelligent then that's a win for the project. Stalwart111 10:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stalwart111, I have to agree with sime of your points here. I must say it is refreshing to see such a balanced and intellgent input to the debate. (I think one source of bias in the "uncommon person" problem is the fact that the deaths of "unknowns" were never reported historically. These days, of course, we have then internet, with it's "OMG News" sections from nearly every news provider, etc.) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's right, but it's not WP's purpose to repeat that "OMG News". From my perspective, we can either stick with the current "Ripley's-style" rubbish and the list continues to fail WP:NOT or we can apply some discerning, partially scientific, logical and fact-based criteria, cut the list down extensively and maybe keep something that might (admittedly) not appeal to the lowest common denominator. The talk page suggests that it will never move away from the former, so it remains in violation of policy, so I remain in favour of deletion. If there's a genuine, good-faith commitment to take out the trash then I might feel differently. Stalwart111 11:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. Now, where did I put that hymnsheet...? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At least this AFD now has a soundtrack (and it's already part of a 7-CD box set). Stalwart111 12:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• what does any particular editor's personal opinion about eligibility criteria mean? If we need to go down that line, we are obviously in an unsupportable article as it would inherently violate content policies and there is no evidence that doing so would be any improvement to the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's not "a line", it's just a response to Stalwart's points. I was asking him, not you. Policy is important, but so are people's views. How else is policy ever changed. And he's prepared to make reasoned argument, instead of constantly parroting out a patchwork-quilt of policy links. Not that you yourself are ever given to any sort of hyperbolic link-fest, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

if you are saying that policy would need to be changed for this article to meet policy, that i fully agree with you on. however, the policy would need to be changed first before the application of the new version of policy would be applicable to whether or not this article meets policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

gee, thanks for clarifying that one for us. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An encyclopedic topic since the 19th century[17]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You failed to point out it is "The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable." Yes, people have collected gossip for entertainment for a long time, but at least back then they were not presenting it as truth. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ouch!! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Though idiosyncratic in a way not dissimilar to Wikipedia itself, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable is a legitimate and well-known source text, that's why we have a Wikipedia article on it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible delete: Delete is the only option here, because this fails WP:NOT in spades. There's no set-in-stone criteria as to what's an unusual death and what isn't, and I can guarantee you that Warden's books disagree with each other as to that criteria. If you need proof of how subjective this list is, you should note that the Wikipedia community has spent the time since the 5th AfD fighting over what belongs and what doesn't. And there's good reason why there's never going to be any agreement: because, on the one hand, anything that's not one of the top 4-5 worldwide causes of death can be considered "unusual"; but on the other, anything which has claimed more than one life can be considered "usual". Many of the top-notch lists on Wikipedia have clearly defined criteria (people who were X and did Y, usually; or places designated A because of association with B); this list could be 1 MB and still not be exhaustive, another no-no per WP:NOT. pbp 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• likewise? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise. Rename if not delete pbp 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't seems quite as controversial. But why? Looking forward to its (first) RfD? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Its first AfD was years ago. According to its talk page, it's had five. pbp 00:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, yes gosh, my mistake. How on earth has that survived? Seems more debatable that this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also note that any vote that hinges primarily on hit count should be ignored; an article that gets a million hits can still be deleted if it fails WP:NOT and an article that gets 10 hits can still be kept if it passes WP:GNG. "There is a reliable source for each death" isn't a reason for keeping either, as it doesn't address the inherent subjectivity of what is on the list. Remember that for a list to be kept, the TOPIC has to be notable and pass WP:NOT as well as the entries in it (Otherwise, we could just create a bunch of lists of notable topics that have nothing in common with each other). We are much better served with categories that define peoples' deaths rather than some catch-all list. And it goes without saying that "keep because we need to stop AfDing this" is invalid as well; something that is closed as non-consensus is perfectly reasonable to be revisited within a couple of months, and this needed to be revisited as such an affront to WP:NOT. pbp 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you explain what you mean by "a bunch of lists of notable topics"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Draw any number of notable topics out of a hat, and make them into a list, regardless of whether or not they have anything in common. That's what could happen if we didn't have the rule that the list itself (not just the entries) must pass WP:GNG and not violate WP:NOT. What topics are in said lists is less important than the fact that said lists shouldn't exist pbp 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, what are the "notable topics" here? It looks like one topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note above that people voted to keep because each death was sourced. They are claiming that each death is a notable topic. I am claiming that notability of each death is irrelevant if it fails WP:NOT. pbp 23:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's your own personal interpretation of why people voted. That's not why I voted - care to check? It seems you're looking for a WP:RS that "the topic of unusual deaths" is a notable one in its own right. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said that's how you personally voted (but I do have problems with your vote, as it seems to be based on the TIME coverage, which is not germane). It is how Dream Focus voted, almost exactly in those words pbp 23:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I still think "unusual deaths" is a notable topic in its own right (regardless of what I may have said in, or meant by, my !vote) as do, apparently, the people who have written books on the subject. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible keep: To counter-balance Pbp above me. I agree the list is subjective, subject to whatever editing standards consensus agrees upon, and I agree "Warden's books" probably disagree over criteria - as it is true that entire books are devoted to this subject. Many notable subjects are messy. 10 AfDs! Good grief!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need a better rationale than "Keep because some other guy voted delete" pbp 19:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the "some other guy" was you! The subject meets WP:GNG. You guys make me laugh. If I decide to read all 10 AfDs perhaps I'll come back with a more detailed explanation, but I don't want to waste everyone's time retreading old ground. Just like Silverseren was all gung ho to delete something he didn't like so are you.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, @Milowent:, ain't you forgetting that, in case of a tie between WP:GNG and WP:NOT, WP:NOT wins out? pbp 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal subjective opinion that WP:NOT is not satisfied is disputed by many other editors as well as sourcing, so that's not a very convincing argument. Every "List of (notable) ..." could be the subject to random deletion based on your subjective arguments.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • (e/c)The "strongest possible delete" was based on policy WP:NOT. to effectively be a "counterbalance" you would actually need a policy to base your "strongest possible keep" on. I do not see anything other than WP:ILIKEIT (which is not policy)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is, there is nothing in WP:NOT that prohibits the list intrinsically. All the delete !votes complain of is that the article has WP:OR problems as it currently stands. This is not a reason to delete (how many times must I remind this?), it is a reason to sit down around a table and find a way to solve such problems. --cyclopia^speak! 21:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there were problems that could be fixed you might be able to point to that or at least progress towards them being fixed, however, the problems have not been able to be fixed in over a year of attempts have not been getting smaller and in fact, the push has been to increase the number of policy related problems. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of progress towards the OR issues being fixed, also thanks to your very own efforts, TheRedPenOfDoom. Yes, it is a slow and frustrating process. Yes, not everybody might agree with you. But it's not like we have to be ready tomorrow, and that the situation is difficult to fix does not mean we have to throw everything away. If we were to delete every article with long-standing problems (be them OR, POV or whatever), I suppose WP would be lucky to remain with a dozen articles. --cyclopia^speak! 10:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if we were talking about just part of the article being WP:OR, and being easily replaceable with something that ain't OR, you might have a point. But every single thing on the list is on there as a result of a judgment call (Read:OR) by a Wikipedia editor that Mr. X's death is unusual. And anything you could add instead is exactly the same way. In short, it's all OR, and it can never be anything but OR. As such, this article violates WP:NOT pbp 23:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY, points 1 and 6 pbp 22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Points saw and exceptionally irrelevant: unusual deaths form a strongly associated topic, as external sources confirm, and there is no cross-categorization whatsoever here -again, we talk of a topic on which there are entire books. --cyclopia^speak! 22:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Exceptionally irrelevant?" You can't dismiss the NOT policy as irrelevant, because anything that fails it must be deleted. And, again, you are citing the GNG as counter to a NOT argument...see above posting about NOT superseding GNG. NOT is policy, GNG is a guideline pbp 23:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Purplebackpack89, unfortunately it seems you have some reading comprehension issues. I will try to explain myself better. The points you cited of WP:NOT are irrelevant to the case in point because they have nothing to do with this article. In other words, the article does not fail the policies you cited, because they point to issues that do not exist here. Also, I didn't cite the GNG above. I suppose with this you refer to my assertion that "we talk of a topic on which there are entire books". That was not about the GNG. That was about the cross-categorization point of WP:NOT you cited. Given that the topic is recognized by multiple sources, it means it cannot be considered as a random or trivial cross-categorization. I hope this helps. --cyclopia^speak! 10:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Cyclopia:, Don't patronize me. Just because somebody wrote a book about it doesn't mean that the topic passes WP:NOT muster. All it means is that the author of the book, rather than a Wikipedia editor, pulled the list out of thin air. It in no way gives it the objective criteria needed for a list to kept. You have yet to present anything that gives an objective criteria, and until you do so, I will continue to maintain that this article should be deleted. pbp 13:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Purplebackpack89:, it means however that the topic is not a trivial or whimsical cross-categorization. So it means for sure that it passes the part of WP:NOT you asked me to read. Before handwaving policies, it would be better if you grasped what they actually mean. About the objective criteria, it is the one we always use for content: if sources describe it as unusual, odd, weird or similar. --cyclopia^speak! 13:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Um, excuse me, a Directory of Unusual Deaths? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Clearly. Indiscrimate list based on fully subjective and frankly tabloid criterias. Not an encyclopedic topic. I believe this kind of tabloid, non-encyclopedic lists and sometimes articles in the long run harms the seriosity and reputation of Wikipedia. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any evidence to support your belief, please? As discussed above, we have evidence from Time magazine that this article is actually praised rather than scorned. We also have evidence that it is the attempts to delete such excellent work which actually damage Wikipedia's reputation. People are naturally wary of contributing when their work may be torn to pieces by a mob, as happened to Hypatia. Warden (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you see The Times, The Independent and the BBC as "tabloid sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an encyclopedic topic. - WP:UNENCYC apart (that is, rehash of WP:IDONTLIKEIT), there are plenty of sources on the topic, and as such this is pretty much encyclopedic.
• I believe this kind of tabloid, non-encyclopedic lists and sometimes articles in the long run harms the seriosity and reputation of Wikipedia. - This is quite a funny assessment for an article that Time Magazine deemed an "unforgettable entry" (and in a positive sense). --cyclopia^speak! 14:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Time forgot to care enough to keep their comments from getting hijacked by a Getty images promotion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So what? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• That looks like some sort of link rot. We should not contribute to this serious problem by making our own links unavailable after they have been online for 10 years. Punching such holes in our site would be technical vandalism. Even if we decided to restructure our coverage of this topic, there are better alternatives to deletion which would leave a trail for readers to follow. Warden (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "other people have linked here" is not a valid keep rationale. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The list inclusion criteria specify that multiple RS are required for each entry on the list. I would interpret that as multiple RS that specif that a death was unusual (or strange or some such). With that qualifier I don't think this is an indiscriminate list, nor does nay other current policy that i am aware of prohibit or even disfavor such a list. I might add that while consensus can change, renominating an often previously AfD'd page after less than six months is IMO poor practice and should be discouraged, and I would weakly keep on that basis alone. If indvidual items on the list are not properly supported by RSs, find sources and add them, or remove the items, but that is merely standard editing, no need for an AfD. DES ^(talk) 18:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - the last AfD lasted a full 2 hours and 2 minutes. How long does this one get? I see no trends toward any consensus emerging here, only progressively entrenched positions, some of which are now starting to deteriorate into animosity and edit warring. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per myriad comments above, notably those of Necrothesp, cyclopia, and Martinevens123. I participated extensively in recent discussions at the article's talk page before giving that up as a waste of time, since people were just talking past each other. There were two opposing camps there, with little or no middle ground in common, and it's exactly the same in this RfC. Both sides make valid points based on policy and reason, but never the twain shall meet. The only possible outcome here is "no consensus", which should result in a de facto "keep". If that happens, I'd be inclined to consider further AfD nominations purely disruptive unless new arguments are brought to the table. Rivertorch (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Martinevans123 has made valid points based on policy and reason? And here I thought he was motivated solely to make this AFD so long and surreal that a naive admin might mistake the "keep" camp's position for being policy-based.—Kww(talk) 20:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny, I have the same impression about many delete !votes. --cyclopia^speak! 21:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• D'oh, Kww! and I thought no-one would notice. But yes, of course, I take all the blame for the surrealism. But the length?? Not quite all my ow work there, I think. And that "admin" would certainly have to be rather naive. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because Necrothesp's Keep rationale, "I think we're all intelligent enough to realise what constitutes an 'unusual death'", made me actually jump in surprise. No, we're not. I'm definitely not. And whatever intuitions people may have about what constitutes an unusual death vary wildly (how surprising), per the list's talkpage. I can't believe I'm agreeing with pbp. That's got to tell you something. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, but a bad keep argument doesn't make a delete argument (nor viceversa). There are RS on the subject that can be perused, and sourcing is and should be the primary criteria. If it is not, we can discuss it all together and patrol the list to take care of it. It is a problem of editing, not deletion. --cyclopia^speak! 21:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

with the amount of editing that has occurred at that article over the past year, if it was purely editing issues which have the possibility of being fixed, they would have been fixed. That even after a year of fairly sustained attempts at improvement the article is still in such poor shape is evidence that it is fatally flawed from the premise and that no amount of editing has any likely chance of being able to counter the fact that "unusual" is entirely subjective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, uhm, why one year (or ten, or one hundred years) are a deadline, given that we have none? Wikipedia is a work in progress. Even if the list would be doomed to be imperfect forever (something I hardly believe) because of failure at getting consensus between editors, this doesn't mean we should delete it. We are not meant to be perfect. --cyclopia^speak! 21:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we do not need to be perfect, we do need to be within policy or at least have a vision of getting there. There is nothing to indicate either is possible even given another year or ten or one hundred. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is disingenuous. The article greatly benefited of attempts, including yours, to link every entry to reliable sources. Pinning all entries to reliable sources is well within reach. I don't see why we should throw the towel. --cyclopia^speak! 22:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vital supporting evidence from Chess Grand Master William Hartston [18]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

If a comment on Wikipedia made you "jump in surprise", I hate to think what a mild surprise in the real world would do to you. Probably best to wrap yourself up in cotton wool and stay indoors with the TV and radio firmly off! Much safer. Personally, I think it's rather sad that my appeal to common sense has met with such shock. However, given the number of AfD discussions in which I've participated and the complete lack of common sense and desperation for everything to be governed by rules that I've seen from many editors, I'm not really surprised. And that's sad too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

• comment I'm adding another rationale to my delete above: WP:BLP1E - I came across the following in a review of "Strange Deaths" book: "As a family member of Frank Nelson, I am upset to see a story that is so tragic to my family, be smeared in a tacky book created to entertain others. I can see it now: "Hey! Let's take stories that have left families grieving over loved ones they've lost and turn them into a source of entertainment for others and make money off of their pain!" To me it's disrespectful and it made me sick to see this book. Please, if you do read this, I hope you remember those who were left in pain. Grandmothers, parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, wives and children. Frank was a loving husband, with 4 beautiful daughters and a HUGE family who loved and cared for him. I don't want him to be remembered by the tragic way he passed, but rather for the great man that he was." I'm not going to besmear Mr. Nelson further by linking to his untimely passing, but the point of the family member (who I don't have any reason to disbelieve) is a good one, and we should take it under consideration. We've listed a number of people here who aren't otherwise notable, and immortalizing them by what some tabloid-esque book considers "unusual" is offensive to their memory - especially if they weren't already famous or notable for something else, it's a rather dubious honor to be listed on this list, and I would be pretty pissed off if my relative ended up here for all to see and snicker about.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's some grasping at straws. First of all, BLP is rarely an issue when we deal with dead people. Yes, I know that recent deaths etc. come under BLP, and I can agree on perhaps a 1-2 year moratorium on a fatal case before considering adding it here (unless massively notable). But in general you can't build a BLP case for dead people: BLP is especially tough and rigorously enforced because it is meant to protect a very specific delicate case, that is living people. As such, with great power comes great responsibility. It is not meant to be used as a jolly, and for sure it is not meant as a blanket ban on everything vaguely disquieting to people. In any case, even if we removed all deaths of the last 100 years, just to be sure, this still wouldn't change zilch on the existence of the list per se. --cyclopia^speak! 21:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using your rationale, presumably you also feel it's wrong for these deaths to be reported in the media? Because they certainly are. And that includes the "respectable" media. Or does this squeamishness only apply to Wikipedia articles you don't like? -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I want to add too a rationale to my keep above. The concept of unusual death is well established in the medical literature. User:Obiwankenobi on the article talk page listed these examples:
  • Some Unusual Toxicological Aspects of Two Carbon Monoxide Deaths; Mary J. Gretney1, R.C. Ginger1, C.M. Bullivant2
  • A death in a stationary vehicle whilst idling: unusual carbon monoxide poisoning by exhaust gases; Motoki Osawaa
  • An Unusual Case of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning;Pierre L. Auger, Benoît Levesque, Richard Martel, Henri Prud'homme, David Bellemare, Claude Barbeau, Pierre Lachance and Marc Rhainds;Environmental Health Perspectives;Vol. 107, No. 7 (Jul., 1999), pp. 603-605
  • Unusual Presentation of Death Due to Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: A Report of Two Cases;American Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology:June 1997 - Volume 18 - Issue 2 - pp 181-184;Ruszkiewicz, Andrew M.D.; de Boer, Bastiaan F.R.C.P.A.; Robertson, Shelley F.R.C.P.A.
  • JForensicSci,July 2005, Vol. 50, No. 4;Anny Sauvageau,Suicide by Inhalation of Carbon Monoxide in a Residential Fire: "We present here the unusual case of an adult female who committed suicide by waiting in the living room after setting fire to her bedroom"

Looking for "unusual death" on PubMed retrieves 45 entries. This demonstrates that the concept of unusual death can be reliably sourced (forensic and medical journals are about as reliable as you can get on the concept of death and its unusualness) and it is an encyclopedic, notable concept. --cyclopia^speak! 22:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Along with all the other references, even the New Scientist has mentioned unusual deaths in its book of bizarre tales http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1996-07.html . This article satisfies WP:LISTN as show by attempts to get the policy changed by one commentator. AfDing articles again and again and again based up WP:IDONTLIKEIT is disruptive, and very bad for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is based upon what reliable sources say, and there are a plethora about unusual deaths.Martin451 00:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cyclopia and Martin451. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]