Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (6th 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. Non admin closure per Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion Martin451 (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths[edit]

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

Previous discussion ended in no-consensus. This article suffers from a pair of crippling problems:

It's never clear what is an unusual death and what isn't, and as such criteria for inclusion is subjective. Most of these are freak accidents, but not all.
This list will never be exhaustive, even if limited to people with Wikipedia entries.

Note that the deletion rationale is slightly different than in the previous AfD. I'd also note that "this gets a lot of hits (which was the rationale behind half of the votes in the previous AfD discussion) is in no way a valid argument for keeping an article. p b p 00:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on crack? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've renumbered this nomination (it's the sixth not third). And as PBP's generated list was looking rather untidy, Here is a chronological list with results: -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hillbilly should not have moved this, nor should he have deleted the generated list, which I might add was generated by a bot and not me p b p 01:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem to me to be the same arguments that have been brought up the previous six (six!) AFD discussions (if I'm counting correctly). How are they different?

The "it can never be exhaustive" argument is lame - lots of articles on wikipedia can never be exhaustive. The "inherently subjective" argument, on the other hand, is the one that leaves people teetering on the edge of yea or nay. Wander through the archives and you'll be a veritable Proustian collection of verbiage about it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there was an even-earlier AFD than the list, under the article's first name: [1]

The previous AFD was just closed three days ago as "no consensus" despite a very lengthy discussion with lots of participants. What on earth do you think you will accomplish by restarting it this soon? postdlf (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus. What else? p b p 01:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. There has to be some kind of moratorium on this. The previous AFD just ended. --SubSeven (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Anything can be renominated immediately if it closes in no-consensus. This is really no different than relisting a debate (which, IMO, should have been closed as delete the first time because half the votes were ILIKE/this gets hit a lot). If you don't like it, take it to ANI, but this issue has been brought there before, and at least once the decision to relist has been affirmed p b p 01:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So just keep hammering it until you get the result you want. Gotcha. --SubSeven (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about less criticizing the nomination and more offering of reasons as to why the legs of the nomination are valid or invalid. Oh, right, I forgot, the only reason it was NC the last few times was "I like it" and "It gets hit a lot" p b p 02:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.