Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people by cause of death

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 keep all. There may be one or two odd 'exception', in which they should be nominated separately. - Mailer Diablo 08:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people by cause of death[edit]

I am listing this list and all the sub-lists for deletion. What this articles list, are just 10-30 people who died by the same cause of death. If cause of death is important, the only place it should be mentioned is the article about the person (or eventually, in the article about anorexia nervosa there can be some people from the list mentioned. Not to mention that there are no sources, save biographies. ) Tone 21:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Tone 21:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you're going to nominate pages for deletion, you do need to mark all of them. If you're not already doing so, I suggest you start. FrozenPurpleCube 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I did it. Here is the list:

I removed List of professional cyclists who died during a race because I find it somehow more self consistent. --Tone 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' List of racing drivers who died in racing crashes as it is reasonably consistent under the same terms as above for cyclists. No opinion on the rest. FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep Space disaster which list of space disasters redirects to. That's a reasonable narrow subject. FrozenPurpleCube 22:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this one actually does not fit in. I removed it, it was not nominated. But I think the rest of them is the same category. --Tone 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and have a general community-wide policy discussion on lists. All of these sorts of lists have been systematically deleted, and I am not sure that WPedians in general realise this or whether they would approve. It's easy to find reasons to delete any particular list of people by.... . There may be much less consensus of the general rule of not having them. DGG 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all; I agree entirely with DGG, especially about the community-wide policy discussion on lists. I think that only a small minority actually dislike seeing information organized in lists. Most of us find lists to be a quick reference. Listmaking didn't start with Irving Wallace. The World Almanac was doing it more than 100 years ago; many non-fiction books have an appendix. Nobody has to read a list if they don't want to. Mandsford 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, further endorse a community discussion on list keep/toss policy. There has been an ongoing deletion of lists for some time and I understand how often they can be unsourced and even unencyclopedic, but, disagree that they need to be tossed like last week's grocery list. --Dhartung | Talk 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with two exceptions; Some of these lists needs toning down as there is a separate list where they belong as you can see in the category page. As for those I would like to nominate for deletion, I would like to suggest the unlisted List of sportspeople who have died during their playing career, as for the reason that it is indiscrimate and rather than just delete, split for the reason that most of these entries should be included on any of these listed above and there should be a list about sportspeople who died on-the-field. As for List of racing drivers who died in racing crashes, I would like to suggest trimming it down as there is a separate lists for fatalities in races (Indy 500 and Le Mans), circuits (Daytona) and even series (CART and F1). I would like to suggest deleting List of deaths by aircraft misadventure as there is another list called List of people who died in aviation-related incidents, in another word, that's two of the same lists and double the housework. Willirennen 00:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A pathologist would tell you these aren't really causes of death so much as the circumstances surrounding their deaths. A cause of death would be something like: their heart stopped. ~ Infrangible 02:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to know that Caesar and Kennedy weren't assassinated; their hearts stopped. Carlossuarez46 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some people hate lists, I'm not one of their number. This is useful information. I don't agree with splitting the motor racing articles up either as it simply makes such information much harder to find and compare. Nick mallory 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. --Evb-wiki 03:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As we in fact have featured-quality lists, obviously there is no proscription against lists and lists are not universally (in)discriminate. Might you speak to the extent to which these lists are or are not discriminate? --Dhartung | Talk 08:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The featured-quality lists (as well as other lists worth keeping) provide textual context indicating the similarities, differences and connection the listed items have (i.e., they are not mere lists). Here we have items simply listed without texual explanation as to the connection (and usually without real info about the item itself). Of course, the only connection these items have to each other is identified in the articles' titles. --Evb-wiki 13:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all *Keep how one dies is about as defining as it gets in the bio business. Carlossuarez46 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, I disagree with the nominator's assertion that this information only belongs in the subject's articles, and the suggestion that the old "indiscriminate information" anti-list catch-all applies. Can do with some cleanup, but the ones I checked are pretty well referenced, and as long as the lists are restricted to notable individuals (i.e. subjects of a Wikipedia article), they are a notable and worthwhile inclusion. --Canley 13:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some (e.g. racing), delete others, so I guess Keep on the nom. as written. JJL 13:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of the lists may be out there but a majority of them do not seem bad to me. Group noms in this situation are generally not a good idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all wiki is not paper - if there are no references the tag as such - I pretty much agree with the comments of user canley, sbandrews (t) 17:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, but not the ones that are too broad, e.g. starvation, volcanic eruptions, childbirth, suicides. Clarityfiend 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see the nomination was too massive. When this closes, I will renominate some of them separately. --Tone 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per DGG. Useful also to see where the gaps are - IE people listed who don't have an article. Lugnuts 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - T-75|talk|contribs 05:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, but every entry on each page should be verified with reliable sources Merbabu 10:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where is List of people who died of AIDS?— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That list you are talking about is List of HIV-positive people. Willirennen 17:58, 15 June 2007 (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.