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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died on their birthdays[edit]

List of people who died on their birthdays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

All the reasons that got this deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died on their birthdays still apply. The only thing these people have in common is that they are among the 1/365th of the population that has the same birth and death date. It does't make them more or less notable, isn't the topic of serious interest, just some trivia. Fram (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as the nom says, it's a list of people who have died on their birthday, and I doubt any of them are notable simply for that reason. (Also per Wp:IINFO.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If the speedy as G4 (recreation) is declined then delete. List of pure coincidences. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it personally baffles me that the CSD was declined but oh well. For all the same reasons it was previously deleted. Redfarmer (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, all the people on this list seem to have established notability based on something other than that they died on their birthday, such is why they all seem to have articles? Unomi (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... which is not a reason to keep this list. It is not because every item in a list is a bluelink and referenced, that the list itself is on a notable topic. I can create a list of people whose name has no vowels but e, including Ellen Degeneres and Jeff Beck, and it would be deleted on sight (I hope), even though it is also pretty unusual. Fram (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it is illogical, but newspaper obituary authors seem to make a point of deaths on birthday, as shown by the Google News hits. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - creator seems to work on a number of lists of this type: List of supercentenarians from the United States, Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2007, List of Italian supercentenarians, List of oldest dogs, and List of Holocaust survivors. I agree that this particular list does not have much reference value, but it is limited to people who otherwise meet Wikipedia's notability standard and is no more offensive that some of the trivial categories that we have in place. As a list, it provides more details than it would as a category, with not only birth and death dates, but also a brief summary of each member's significance. When I was in grade school, I was puzzled by the textbooks which made much of the fact that both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on July 4, 1826. (Wikipedia does also). Although meaningless statistically, these coincidences have recognition in popular culture. The search "died on his birthday" has 387 Google News hits and "died on her birthday" has 291. Racepacket (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's as relevant as a lot of lists that reside on Wikipedia. I don't know whether 365/1 (or rather 1461/4, since someone can be born every four years on Feb 29, although of course they will only qualify if the number of years they live is exactly divisible by 4, of which there's a 1 in 4 chance, so perhaps it really is 365/1 - but there again, since a lot of people go out and party on their birthdays, and drink to excess and put themselves in more danger, perhaps it's slightly less than 365/1... and... and... why is my head hurting so much now, help!!) - anyway, this all got me thinking, and as a result I'd like to keep it in because it's an interesting anecdote, if you'd asked me to tell you three things I knew about Ozu one of them would have been that he was born and died on the same day, and also that Shakespeare supposedly did but no one's 100% sure. It's something people talk about, as a result I vote for "keep". --Tris2000 (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hah, just realised that in fact it's much less than 365/1... if you include stillbirths! In England and Wales in 2005, which has excellent healthcare, there were 3,484 stillbirths versus 645,881 live births in 2005, so that's 186/1 that a baby is stillborn, and that's for a modern country the numbers are far worse in the developing nations. So in effect, you can't work it out really. However, it's been a fun waste of half an hour of my life as I have come to this conclusion. :-) Tris2000 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; the original AFD got it right. Lists of coincidences are not encyclopedic or useful, and the underlying fact/oid itself has no encyclopedic significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is absurd. There's absolutely nothing significant about dying on your birthday. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a legitimate argument.—Chowbok ☠ 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:IINFO. Also, would like to suggest that Tris2000 read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no matter how one attempts to dress it up, this is trivia. There's even a whole section of unverified ones! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:IINFO. Warrah (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:IINFO. Otherwise we should also have List of people who died on 29 February because chances for hitting that date are awesomely tiny 0.068%.--Staberinde (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Although I conceed that it is effectively trivia, which does go against Wikipedias guidelines, I do still feel it merrits inclusion as it is a list of people who share interesting circumstances surrounding their death. Whereas it is being argued most frequently that this is no more useful then a list of people who died on a specific day of the year (which we do actually keep in the specific dates articles (eg. February 29#Deaths)), what makes this differet is that whereas everyone will die on any any day of the year (death is the only thing more certain then taxes) very few wiil die on their birthday, which is an interesting circumstance surrounding their death that they share, same as if they were all to have died in a road traffic accident, long before their life expectancy in their thirties, in public, from breast cancer, in aviation, by hanging, by starvation or after being tasered (all of which are listed) it would merrit a mention. However, since I see this is most likely to fall victim to WP guidelines, I feel at the very least the information should be kept in the form of a catagory, if not an article MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, a category would be likely to fail category guidelines and find itself at WP:CFD. Redfarmer (talk)
• Delete trivial facts should not be emphasized in an encyclopedia. i would accept the article if there was a major book on the subject, or even on the subject of irrational beliefs and fascinations around birthdays and deaths, that said how irrational this fascination is, just like people being excited about sharing a birthday, or, (dont get me started) linking WP article subjects birthdays to that days article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unlike living to a particularly long age (as in the other lists linked above), there's nothing particularly important about dying on one's birthday, and I doubt there are any reliable sources that claim otherwise. Robofish (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlike living to a very old age, data which can be scientifically useful, this is just trivial. Also, records of extreme age are limited by their rarity...that's not the case here. This list could grow to be thousands of entries.Ryoung122 13:14, 23 November 2009 (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.