Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths from accidental tree failures in Australia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Tone 07:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths from accidental tree failures in Australia[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of deaths from accidental tree failures in Australia (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)

Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. Types of fatal accidents are a dime a dozen. It doesn't mean we should have lists of victims for each one and each country (Draft:List of deaths from accidental tree failures in New Zealand is lurking in the wings). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All that is missing are source(s) that discuss the topic as a topic. I'd really like to make sure this topic isn't covered for lack of WP:BEFORE. I'm guessing User:Mark Hartley is someone with background or professional expertise in tree deaths .. which for the tree industry including governments which maintain trees is a real area of concern and not just some made-up category on Wikipedia. Also worth noting these are small countries with high quality reportage so making a complete list like this is possible compared to many other countries, no one is proposing lists like this for every country, the nomination rationale "for each one and each country" is a slippery slope logical fallacy. -- GreenC 14:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal. First you say that lists for small countries are manageable, then that no one is suggesting lists for each country. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think the nom said "each country"? They are making an argument for deletion based on a global view that "each country" could have an article like this one and we must stop that from happening. Which I agree it would be silly if "each country" had this type of article. But "no one" (other than the nom) is making a case that "each country" could have an article like this, the nom is making a slippery slope logical fallacy. -- GreenC 20:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources I was looking at this earlier and, since there's interest, here's a start:
  1. Australian Property Law Bulletin – Deadly trees
  2. Australian Journal of Outdoor Edcation – Preventing death and serious injury from falling trees...
  3. Australian and NZ Journal of Public Health – Hospital admissions in the Hunter Region from trees and other falling objects...
  4. In Australia Even The Trees Can Kill You
  5. More than 5000 trees chopped...
  6. The weird ways Australians die
  7. Trees must go as Queensland guards against death by coconut
  8. Preventing Fatal Incidents in School and Youth Group Camps and Excursions
What the Aussies need to keep those deadly trees under control is some Yankee ingenuity like the helicopter chainsaw! Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does suggest that the issue is covered in external notable sources (separate to what is currently in the article, which is just a list of news articles. Perhaps it shouldn't be a list but an article? Bookscale (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new article would include this list in it. Perhaps then just rename and repurpose this one. Dream Focus 12:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a list of tree deaths at least hundreds of entries long. Yep, that'll be practical. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Listcruft. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, and another thing ("here we go coola":)), i take issue with the title of this article - "accidental tree failures", the dropping of branches and the falling over of trees are not necessarily a "failure" by the tree, rather it is part of their natural life cycle.... says coola who sees numerous examples of fallen branches that commence growing and fallen trees that are happily growing from their "ground horizontal" position. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to <something non-list> per sources listed by Andrew D. .. The Relevant policy is WP:PRESERVE and relevant guideline WP:GNG as deaths by tree are a notable topic, evidently monitored by governments and other institutions concerned with public safety, in some countries. -- GreenC 13:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the one hand Andrew D.'s list of sources shows that people dying by falling tree part in Australia is probably notable. On the other hand, I don't think the list as currently written is encyclopedic. For one thing, it is so poorly formatted that I haven't figured out what the default sort even is. Part of me wants to scream Verba Delenda Est and consign this list to the scrapheap of history. Another part of me thinks that a more thorough examination of the sources is required and this list can be saved, expanded, and shepherded into greatness. The latter part of me is probably going to win, but I will have to put some thought into what I think should be done with this list. Rockphed (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I suggested above, just rewrite and name it something else so its not just a list article, but keep all the information. This is a valid topic, and listing all the cases of things happening is valid information to have. Dream Focus 17:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, it is impractical for this article to be anything but a list. Full prose uses more words. Second, not all information is valuable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 18:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, not true - it has an introduction and discussion at the top. Wikipedia is not paper and this is not indiscriminate. Trees in Australia specifically can be dangerous because of their propensity to drop branches. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no encyclopedic value in keeping the list. Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports, especially on people that fail to meet up to its WP:BLP policy, which is pretty much every single entry. Ajf773 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, many have been dead for many years. It is a notable topic with a list at the bottom. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a relevant topic and there is not a legitimate reason to delete. Nominator seems to apply WP:IDONTLIKEIT to an article with WP:RS. Keeping it serves our readers. Wm335td (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an indiscriminate list of non notable people. The WP:BLP and WP:NOT policies override WP:ILIKEIT. Ajf773 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable topic that has been researched as per this, this, this and this. Should be renamed to "List of people killed by trees in Australia". Some species of eucalyptus tree are nicknamed "widow-makers" - this is a well-known issue in Australia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article has dozens of sources for victims, it is no problem to verify that information. And there are sources in this AfD that indicate the topic death by trees is notable. The only question is do we keep it as a list or rename and rebuild as a non-list etc.. which then is not really about AfD any longer. -- GreenC 01:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't keep random lists of unnotable information. This goes in line with why an article named "List of place names that are offensive to disabled people" isn't a list. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right finding decent sources for an imaginary list about disabled people would be difficult, but we are here to talk about tree deaths. A topic clearly novel to you personally, but not novel to the wider world as evidenced by the many sources you are ignoring. -- GreenC 01:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be OR only of the topic itself was OR but we have shown many sources on this page that discuss the topic. -- GreenC 01:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is OR in that the sources are newspaper articles about individual accidents. There is no overall list of victims, so it is a WP:SYN to keep it. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria for inclusion is decided on a per-list basis. Member notability is sometimes used and sometimes not. It is typical when there are too many non-notable members but enough notable ones to justify a list. This list doesn't have a problem with too many members, nor would it make sense to list only notable members since there are none. -- GreenC 18:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has encyclopedic relevance. The info is quite notable. Topic also meets the requirements listed in WP:GNG. My opinion anyway. Catorce2016 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Remember the fallacy of division. That the topic of accidental tree failures is notable does not mean that every incident is notable. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 19:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is saying each incident is notable - each does not have its own article, just is on a list. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If all known information were gathered, this list would be too long. Every person on it fails WP:LSC. Therefore, it is impractical to have such a list. Also, there is no article on the topic this list covers (accidental tree failures in Australia). From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Edit: From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft of non-notable people dying in an unfortunate way. One could dig up obituaries of people dying from all sorts of causes around the world but that does not mean a compilation of them is appropriate for Wikipedia. Deaths from car crashes occur in Australia and are certainly written about both as a topic as a whole and in specific incidents but it is an indiscriminate collection of information to list all the incidents, names of the victims known or unknown. This being a relatively unusual method does not mean this is appropriate for Wikipedia. Reywas92Talk 23:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I actually agree that a topic on the overall concept of accidental, tree related deaths in Australia would very likely be notable enough for an article, with sources that would certainly satisfy the WP:GNG. However, a completely indiscriminate list of every recorded incident related to this concept is not. I agree completely with Reywas92's argument about this. As the only source being used in this article that is not just about one of the individual incidents is not even on Australia, but the UK, there is really nothing here that needs to be preserved for the actual valid article to be created. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an indiscriminate list. A collection of every death caused by falling trees, sortable by age, gender, etc, may be useful for researchers but does not belong in an encyclopedia. I'm curious who came up with some of these headings: Do reliable sources categorize incidents as either "School, Scout, Department of Education" or "Accidental"?
I'm also hesitant to define "Accidental tree failures in Australia" as a viable non-list article topic. Fatal tree failures occur all over the world; is there anything special about Australia that would justify a country-specific article? –dlthewave ☎ 17:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be special if Australia is known for such failures or Australia has done something notable to deal with such failures. And I would like to add to the rest of the discussion that, of course, although "Citizen of the United States" would be a valid article topic (see Citizenship in the United States), that does not justify a list of hundreds of millions "Citizens of the United States," even if some are notable. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 00:27, 7 October 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_deaths_from_accidental_tree_failures_in_Australia&oldid=1073183578"