The result was WP:SNOW delete. There's no benefit keeping this open for two more days given that the outcome is obvious. ‑ Iridescent 18:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This is a bucket list with a weird and incoherent mix of things which have caused human death. There's no coherence in its scope; in date ranges chosen; in geographic locales. There's no very good logic nor criteria for what should and should not be included. It's a mess and it will always be a mess. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
In WP:DEL-REASON, Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.
WP:BEFORE (in WP:AFD) links to WP:DEL-REASON via the link anchor "valid grounds for deletion" ie, AFD describes deletion-reason (the list of 14 reasons) as being the "valid grounds"
Sederecarinae (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case (links to criteria for speedy deletion), consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.
Investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.
First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the ((notability)) template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.
The nominating editor didn't investigate the possibility of rewriting the article, or look for sources. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.
Sederecarinae (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
reasons why the reasons given by Tagashimon are unnacceptable, (including also reasons why the nomination is without sufficient reason) - by Sederecarinae
opinions of deletion by interested editors, and opinions against, made by Sederecarinae
random years the years aren't random, as I've indicated in 3)
the other accidental deaths (i.e. "meat-blender accident") are included to indicate the existence of a range of low statistical occurrence types of death, with the intention of finding occurences for a more geographically larger area, and a more complete statistic for the types, in the future of the article for each type of death.
The reason why I didn't title the article unnatural causes of death (or something similar) is because the identification of non-natural with humanity implies humans are non-natural - i.e the cause of death was road traffic accident, but a human was driving, nuclear device, but a human released the bomb from an aircraft. Unnatural death is true of Aircraft disasters as the cause of the passengers deaths is mechanical fault, or electric fault, or some other fault, I don't know exactly; a failure of the integrity of the craft as a result of human error, or material error, resulting in a flaw in the aircrafts integrity, plus the interaction of the flaw with the physical environment, during flight, causing the failure of the craft to remain airborne. Sederecarinae (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"When to use the deletion process? Articles that the community feels cannot improve, or are unlikely to improve, are often deleted.
"When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing. Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept. Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.
deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
& WP:DEL-REASON: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)
Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.
I can't see how editors preferring deletion have adhered to the criteria for deletion as described in the the two page Sederecarinae (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
Wikipedia:4DDd the purpose of XfD is to decide whether an article fails a policy. Even if 40 people vote to delete, if they don't have a reason to do so, the article will be kept. Sederecarinae (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Human and artificial cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries
the selection criteria belong to subjects of law, or social science. Sederecarinae (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"the primary subject of the article is: cause of death, the secondary subject is: human made (artificial) or by human behaviour, the article seeks to describe this subject as a more specific subject to the generally defined subject Causes in the primary. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)"
All men are mortal. (would be information added to Non-natural_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries from one source)
Socrates is a man. (would be information added to Non-natural_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries from one source)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.(would be the conclusion and the use of SYNTH that editors are attempting to apply to the article Non-natural_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries)
((multiple issues|((original research|date=April 2019))))
as is the case in the Hallucinogen article. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)