John Schlossberg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article had sufficient GNG sources. WP:INHERIT doesn't censor WP:GNG sources, rather it's an essay on arguments for Wikipedian's themselves to avoid making during an AfD eg. "I, Green Cardamom, believe this topic is notable because I, Green Cardamom, believe this topic is famous." .. rather in this case, it is the sources which express he is notable by virtue of newspaper articles about him. INHERIT is often misunderstood this way, it's not meant to censor reliable sources, rather original arguments made by Wikipedians. (Also INHERIT is an essay and not an established guideline. While it is often viewed as a guideline, it is not because there is no consensus for that, and probably shouldn't trump the guidelines when there is debate over INHERITs application.) Green Cardamom (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist Sources have been shown and linked that clearly bring fully focused coverage of the subject. The delete !votes simply ignored that. I wouldn't go so far to overturn to keep, given the AfD, but I think it should be procedurally relisted and discussed with a bit more sense. --cyclopia^speak! 17:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I agree with Cyclopia. The delete voters did not address the sources presented and only argued against the non-existent opinion of "he's notable because he's a Kennedy." Of course, three new stories does not make someone notable, so it's possible the end result would be another delete closure. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist WP:GNG is a guideline. It is perfectly OK to say "the subject has in-depth coverage so I am guided to presume notability, but because the coverage is in-depth fluff I think we should not have an article in this case". And I can argue that "despite the in-depth coverage there is inadequate material for a balanced BLP". However it is not clear that is what the "deletes" are arguing and so further discussion could help clarify the matter. Thincat (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep The sources presented in the AfD clearly demonstrate sufficient non-trivial, independent, reliable source coverage. None of the delete !votes had any merit, and should have been discounted by the closing admin, but were not. Jclemens (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Green Cardamom presented three sources during the AfD. One of them is easily ruled out: there's a clear and longstanding consensus that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for BLPs. The other two stand, and the fact that they talk about Schlossberg in the context of his relationship to JFK doesn't mean he isn't notable. It's commonplace for the relatives of important political figures to attract coverage in reliable sources; see, for example, Norma Major, a woman who is (objectively speaking) utterly lacking in achievements or independent significance. But the GNG is not a scalpel capable of separating people who attract coverage because of their relatives from those who are notable for achieving something. It's a big blunt instrument. The only test is whether there are two independent sources. There are, they were linked for all to see, so the notability challenge was dismissed and the case for deletion was destroyed. The close should have been keep and we should overturn it accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 12:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point me to where the Daily Mail consensus was reached? Hobit (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was reached incrementally; most of the discussions are linked from here. The Daily Mail is Britain's Fox News: we can use it with care for non-contentious subjects, but on anything to do with history, politics or climate change it's far out of line, and on BLPs it loses libel cases much too frequently to be considered an acceptable source for Wikipedia's purposes. This case is a double-whammy: a political BLP.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. My reading of that discussion is that it can be used for BLPs in some cases. I think it should count toward notability. Hobit (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Yeah, there were not any policy-based reasons for deletion. I don't see how there could be given the sources. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The close was too much of a supervote, expressing the closer's opinion of the matter. The discussion was weak and seems to have given insufficient attention to alternatives to deletion such as merger with Kennedy family. Making this a redlink just invites recreation and we can do better. Warden (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It meets the WP:GNG requirements for an article. The Daily Mail coverage was quite extensive. [1] Irish Central had a two page article about him, and quoted bits from the interview he and his mother gave to CNN. [2] The New York Post article was about him. [3] They don't just cover his political announcement, they talk about him. Dream Focus 14:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The daily mail is a tabloid and generally UK tabloids are not considered reliable sources. The broadsheet media is what passes for reliable sourcing in the UK although I'm sure many will dispute even this. The mail's characterisation of Ralph Miliband as a man who hated Britain despite pulling strings to flight in WW2 when he could have stayed non-combatant says it all really. There are far too numerous other examples to cite even going back to the eve of WW2 and "Hurrah for the blackshirts" for there to be any doubt about this. I feel very strongly about this and won't be closing this review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. What about the other two then? My Highbeam account isn't finding anything [4] nor Google news search, just minor mentions and some articles hidden behind paywalls. Surely his announcement will get ample media attention like the rest of the Kennedy family does, constantly, for every little thing they do. Dream Focus 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I certainly agree in general with Spartaz about the Daily Mail, I do not see how making a reference to a story there about him , most of which is confirmed by other sources, by itself invalidates the article. I agree that coverage by that paper is not coverage that by itself shows encyclopedic notability, but it wasn't the only source. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing administrator comment: I see no need in keeping this open as it seems the consensus is that those sources (which I ruled out in my closing) do in fact establish notability outside of him being related to JFK. My close was not a supervote as Warden claimed, but instead a misinterpretation of consensus on those sources. Therefore, I'm fine with this article and it's AFD being relisted and closed by a fellow administrator in a week's time. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Four wanted to delete it, two said the sources were fine, so simple mistake. Dream Focus 19:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

DRV is not a venue to continue to fight feuds and bicker incessantly. Please lower the temperature immediately. If this continues this review will be closed very early indeed. Thank you for permitting DRV to continue with its traditional collegiate tone. Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin attempted to prevent any future AFDs of the article, which is beyond his reach.

No reasonable analysis of the input can justify a close as "keep." "No consensus" would have been reasonable, and "delete" is within reach, but not "keep", and certainly not "keep" with this extraordinary preemptive clause that prohibits bringing this thing to AFD again. The deletion arguments are summarized pretty simply: "unusual" is a highly subjective deletion criteria and there isn't any reliable source that allows us to deem any specific death unusual, the community has tried time and time again to agree upon an objective set of criteria and failed. On the "keep side", we have Dream Focus arguing that there is an objective set of criteria while he simultaneously advocates ignoring objective criteria at Talk:List of unusual deaths/Archive 8#no need to use the actual word "unusual", you can think for yourself, Edison arguing that the same objective criteria actually exist, without providing evidence that editors actually follow them. LM2000 and others argue for keep simply because it has passed AFD before, others arguing that Time Magazine coverage of the article mandates keeping it. This whole "objective criteria exist" argument fails to recognize that editors, on the whole, ignore the sourcing criterion and even take to the talk page to argue that requiring sources to describe the death as "unusual" is unfair and unreasonable. Does the criterion exist? Certainly. Is there widespread consensus to use it? Not really.

Colonel Warden even attempted to argue that the Fortean Times is a reliable source in his "keep" argument.

We also have "keep" votes that argue in favor of original research, like Necrothesp, and other keep arguments arguing per Necrothesp.

Making a troublesome AFD worse, we had Martinevans123 disrupting the proceedings in a determined effort to prevent reasonable discussion, making no fewer than 90 comments that generally consisted of snipes at other editors' comments. As for his actual "Keep" vote, it was not based on any Wikipedia policy, it was WP:ITSPOPULAR.

It's impossible to provide very much weight to "it's fixable!" for an article that has been to AFD seven times and never been repaired, and that's the majority "keep" argument here. It would be reasonable to conclude that there was no consensus here. It's probably a little early to conclude that the deletes finally have it and that the community is willing to recognize that the article truly is irreparable. Decreeing that the delete side has no foundation whatsoever for its arguments and is being disruptive is out of bounds, though. Sometimes it takes eight or nine passes before people start to see how weak the keep side of an argument is, and there's no reason to declare that this article is immune to future deletion discussion.

I'd love to see an overturn to delete, but I recognize that that would be as or more problematic as this close. Realistically, I want an overturn to no consensus and a removal of the language that dictates that no further AFDs can ever be started against this article. —Kww(talk) 16:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing administrator comment: Please see User talk:Coffee#List of unusual deaths AFD for further context. I'll take more time to lay out my reasoning to the reviewers here, if/when that becomes warranted. Please keep in mind I'm sleeping throughout the day due to my current work schedule, so I may be late in replying to questions or concerns. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Closing administrator comment: One thing I find imperative to point out here (although any reviewer could easily see this by looking at my closing rationale) is that I did not state that an AFD could never be opened on this list again. What I stated, and with good reason, is that an eighth AFD based on the same arguments should not be started again, unless there has been a drastic change in current policy. This is the very spirit of the "Renominations" point in WP:DELAFD. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the article is deletable under current policy, that's a distinction without a difference. All that's required for deletion is for a closing admin to weigh arguments appropriately.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that even in this DRV you have shown no policy-based argument to delete the article whatsoever, apart from cherry-picking some bad keep !votes, I'd say that it is not deletable under current policy. So much that people have tried to change policy to delete this article (and failed miserably). --cyclopia^speak! 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else thinks my contributions amounted to "a determined effort to prevent reasonable discussion", please let me know. I'd also like to know if Kww was prevented from reasonable discussion. And could he tell us how many comments one is limited to at an RfD? Perhaps (to save community time) I could be topic banned from participation in any future RfDs (on any subject of Kww's choosing). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You rely on people not clicking on your links to see that they are completely irrelevant to the subject, such as your link to Topic (chocolate bar) in this comment. I'd love to hear the logic that defends such postings. If your goal is to poke fun at the discussion process, it's hard for me to see it as a constructive contribution.—Kww(talk) 00:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC

I see. Thanks for clarifying that, Kww. One can just hover, I think, before one decides to click. But I certainly don't rely on people. And it depends on your definition of logic, I guess. Do you think "topic bans" always work, or do you think maybe some addicts always get their comeuppance? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• (edit conflict) Endorse very, very strongly. Actually, Coffee close is one of the best and most thoughtful I've seen on AfD in ages. But let's see a few points in detail
  • Delete !votes do not ever bring a cogent policy-based argument for deletion of the topic. Most delete !votes (e.g.TheRedPenOfDoom, Purplebackpack89, Obiwankenobi, to list three of the most active users in favor of deletion) argued that the list is inherently subjective. This has been (1)proven false since the list can be based on the objective criteria of sources calling the event unusual or a synonym of it (2)that sources have to deal with objective, monolithically consistent criteria for such an assessment does not exist in any topic (3)calls to WP:IINFO fail because the topic is eminently WP:DISCRIMINATE.
  • Attempts at changing policy mid-AfD failed overwhelmingly The delete !votes were actually acutely aware that their position was, at best, shaky policy-wise. So much that one of them, Purplebackpack89, started a thread on WP:VPP to change policy to backup their position. The proposal was met by practically unanimous opposition, calling for a WP:SNOW close. This shows that every delete !vote based on such an argument (that is, the vast majority of them) is pushing a non-consensual position.
  • That it has not been fixed does not mean it is not fixable This is a logical fallacy, that also forgets that we have no deadline. I do not deny that there are serious WP:OR concerns. That they are "unfixable" is instead false, as shown by the fact that inclusion criteria based on sources are being discussed right now, with good support so far (the more people want to participate, the merrier, by the way). Editors as Kww himself and TheRedPenOfDoom have also done lots of work to fix the article removing unsourced entries and asking for sourcing. To bypass our deletion policy one would have to show that the article is intrinsically unfixable, because of the topic. This has not been shown.
  • Reliable academic sources on the topic have been presented by both delete and keep !votes To present the discussion as if all the keep !votes pivoted around Colonel Warden's Fortean Times sources is disingenous. During the discussion, an important point has been the finding that medical and forensic academic journals actually regularly cite the concept of unusual death. Remarkably enough, a delete !vote has brought this to the table -that is, Obiwankenobi. That is a novel and important development in showing that the quality and quantity of sourcing for the article is actually strong, and it is a strong argument in favour of keeping the article.
  • The AfD closure actually covers the bad keep !votes To call for a deletion review could perhaps make sense if the closer actually completely discarded the fact that some keep !votes were invalid. This could bring credence to an admin supervote closure. Very honestly instead Coffee's closure actually remarked that !votes based on article popularity are to be discarded (I include myself in those making a variation of that argument). The point is not that some keep !votes were weak: the point is that none of the delete !votes has basis in any consensual interpretation of policy, while plenty of different kinds of reliable sources have shown that the article can satisfy WP:LISTN, WP:V, WP:GNG etc.
  • Discouraging further AfDs is policy-based and correct WP:DELAFD is clear in labeling multiple nominations as disruptive. Given that seven AfDs have all hovered between "keep" and "no consensus", it seems obvious that further nominations without a change in policy would be just a (probably hopeless) attempt at forum shopping until, by sheer statistical chance, the outcome gets the way the nominator wants. This is disruptive and tendentious, and at best a waste of everyone's time.
  • Numbers Well, yes: AfDs are not meant to be a mere vote count. Yet fact is that consensus, by head count, is leaning strongly towards keep, and almost all by established editors (no SPA or newbie accounts have been seen AFAIK). Most importantly almost all of last !votes are on the keep side and citing other keep !votes for their rationale, showing that the community has been reading, pondering and ultimately endorsing the keep arguments.

For all these reasons I think not only that Coffee closure is excellent, but also that this DRV is basically an attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING and a case of being hard of hearing. We have discussed this topic to (an unusual) death. People who have problems with the inclusion criteria are more than welcome to come to the article and help fixing it instead of endlessly argue again and again that they basically do not like it.--cyclopia^speak! 17:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Kww didn't produce any evidence to support his subjective claim that this article is a "terrible idea". He is therefore in no position to scoff at the evidence produced by other contributors. Anyway, the substantive point here is the close's point that "this means that all further nominations should be closed as violations of WP:DELAFD unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD". WP:DELAFD is an existing policy and it seems quite appropriate to refer to it in this circumstance. Seven nominations is far more vexatious repetition than would be permitted in most other places. Enough is enough. Warden (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure The closing administrator made a wonderful case, laying out everything in clear details. Since certain participates would start up the argument again, and again, and again, as they have in past AFDs where they didn't get their way, I think it best to specify that they can't renominate this AFD for an 8th time unless there have been a change in policy. No nominating for claims of Original Research, he dismissing that in his closing statement, or other things listed in his closing. Dream Focus 20:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete: The administrator's closure ignored policy. Per Wikipedia:Consensus can change, you can't forbid renomination down the road a piece, as Coffee tried to do. And when you throw out all the deletes that are "I like it", "This gets hit a lot", "this shouldn't have been renominated", or "There's objective criteria" (which they're blatantly isn't, and will never be), you actually end up with more delete votes than keep votes. Wikipedia should neither be a place for ridiculously subjective lists such as this one, nor a place for ridiculous admin supervotes such as this one. I am also a bit disturbed by the OWNership level the three endorse votes above took at both the AfD, and in the talk page of the article. pbp 21:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  (Is that OWNership or ACTive editing to the article? I don't recall seeing you there very often.) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  @Purplebackpack89: So, let me get this straight: In this AfD there have been a grand total of zero policy-based delete !votes, plus a massive majority of keep !votes, plus a sound refusal by the community to disallow "ridiculously subjective lists" (as you put it) when you asked for it on WP:VPP -and yet you come here with a straight face saying this should be overturned to delete (something that even the DRV nominator had the dignity and brains to avoid). And after having forum shopped to get policy the way you wanted mid-AfD, you have the balls to accuse editors of WP:OWN. Pbp, you are welcome to have your opinions, but you are making a fool of yourself if you keep this kind of denial in the face of consensus. --cyclopia^speak! 23:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're talking about straight-faces, I don't understand how you can say that there were zero policy-based delete votes, because that's inaccurate. pbp 23:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That's if we are not fooled by mistaking "!votes linking to policy" for "policy based !votes". Yeah, many linked WP:IINFO, but all failed to produce a cogent argument for it that went beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT (see Kww's own !vote for example, based on the personal opinion that article is a "terrible idea"). The other argument by delete !votes (intrinsic subjectivity) is not present in any policy. So much that you yourself had the honesty to acknowledge it and attempted to fix the policy. If the deletes' reasonings were policy-based, what's the point of trying to fix it? --cyclopia^speak! 00:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, articles based on subjective criteria for which we cannot agree on authoritative reliable sources are a terrible idea. If you can actually generate a stable consensus about what kind of source it takes to justify an entry in this list, my objections will go away.—Kww(talk) 00:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  (1)This is a fair opinion you're perfectly entitled to, but it met little consensus so far. Without an overwhelming consensus about this being a "terrible idea", WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. (2) If you think that generating a stable consensus on inclusion criteria is at least theoretically possible, then your opposition to the article falls under things that can be dealt with normal editorial process, and as such we should fix 'em, not delete 'em. That's exactly why the claims of WP:OR in the article - which I do not deny - are however not relevant for deletion. --cyclopia^speak! 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain. A much larger problem here seems to be how we trust WP:RS (if such a mythical beast actually exists, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I found this reminiscent of the various deletion debates for List of common misconceptions. It triggers a lot of similar reasoning. I think there are three facets to consider.

  First facet: In theory, any article may be nominated for deletion at any time by any good faith user. However, in practice repeated renominations of the same article on the same basis, if nothing has changed in the meantime, may be construed as an attempted end run around the previous consensus and speedily closed (with possible sanctions if the renomination was disruptive). This situation is common enough to have its own shortcut (WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED) and speedy keep criterion (WP:SK ground 2c), so most of us know how it works. However, so that there can be no misunderstanding, the way this normally works is that for a few months after a deletion debate has been closed as "keep" or "no consensus", the article enjoys a temporary immunity from the AfD process unless there is (a) a change in policy or (b) a significant development such as a new source. Exactly how long this immunity lasts depends on the article, the sources, and the nature and number of previous debates. In this case we have now had a total of seven well-attended debates on the same subject and the community's view really is hard to misunderstand. The opposition to this article is persistent and vocal, but it has not attracted widespread support. I would personally view an early renomination as a wilful failure to get the message. I think all this is what Coffee intended us to understand from his closing statement. However, since it's possible to read Coffee's closing statement in a different light, and some users are reading it in a different light, I come to the first finding I think this DRV should make: The article is not immune from future AfD, but an early renomination would be unwise.

  Second facet: Seven failed deletion attempts do add up to a significant weight to the "keep" side. It should not be necessary for the article's supporters to repeat themselves four times a year just because other users insist on fresh debates every three months! This is why the arguments raised in AfDs #5 and #6 should be taken into account in the close of #7. Coffee took this into account in his close and he was right to do so. The second finding of this DRV should be that in this respect, Coffee's close is endorsed and, in the inevitable AfD #8, future closers are recommended to take the same approach of giving weight to views expressed in recent previous discussions.

  Third facet: Some lists are kept not because they meet encyclopaedic criteria but because they're simply interesting and widely-read. Such lists are good gateways into the encyclopaedia and they are among our most popular content. Wikipedia is inconsistent about the way it deals with such lists. The List of Unusual Deaths and the List of Common Misconceptions have been kept in the mainspace. The List of Unusual Articles is kept in the Wikipedia space (at Wikipedia:Unusual articles) but with a cross-namespace redirect from List of unusual articles. In my view, this compromise has a lot to recommend it, so the third finding I would suggest for this DRV is that although an early deletion nomination is not advised, a Requested move, RFC or other discussion about moving this content into the Wikipedia space with a cross-namespace redirect would be acceptable and would not be inconsistent with the close.

  I do prefer "keep" over "no consensus" and I do not think it's a good idea to disturb Coffee's close in any other respect.—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I come to the first finding I think this DRV should make: The article is not immune from future AfD, but an early renomination would be unwise. - Just for clarification, S Marshall: the closure as I interpret it allows for new AfDs, obviously, provided however there is a relevant shift in policy. This sounds wise to me: we have repeatedly gauged consensus in the current policy situation, and while it is true that consensus can change, it is also true that a new consensus would require, to be sound, novel policy-based arguments: these seem extremly unlikely to come out in the future unless policy itself changes. I'd say perhaps that unless someone finds a ground-breaking new conceptual angle for an AfD nomination, future nominations should be disregarded. That is, if the new nomination is a rehash of old nomination arguments, we can shut the AfD immediately, because we already know the answer.--cyclopia^speak! 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that would be true for the near future (say, the next six months or so). But if AfD #8 starts in 2015 when the list looks different, then I don't think we could constrain the closer to that extent.—S Marshall T/C 00:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was about to post the exact same thing pbp 00:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and if the list looks the same, the claims of "the problems are fixable" will be even more facile. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found that view hard to sympathise with. In logic, whether the problems are fixable does not depend on whether they've been fixed within a particular timescale. Fixability is a property, not a deadline.—S Marshall T/C 00:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. Actually the reasoning above should be written explicitly in some policy -after this mess of multiple AfDs, DRVs etc. has settled. --cyclopia^speak! 00:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The credibility of the statement that it can be improved is certainly reduced. It's an affirmative defense: if someone wants to claim that something can be improved, they should eventually be able to point at an improvement. Going the other way is attempting to prove a negative: a constant lack of improvement certainly suggests that something can't be improved, but cannot prove it.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (But Red Pen improved the article with his removal of items that did not meet the (albeit informally) agreed inclusion criteria). Martinevans123 (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At some point claims of "its fixable" actually need to result in fixes, otherwise they are no better than tales of Santa Claus in their basis in reality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The credibility of the statement that it can be improved is certainly reduced - Not really. All you need is to point a reasonable and practical improvement route (as I did recently on the article talk page). Also you can often successfully argument that an article cannot be improved, e.g. an article on Antarctic exploration by Babylonians cannot be improved no matter what. That's not the case here. All the article needs is a practical and policy based inclusion criteria agreed by editors. If there is one benefit of this last AfD and all the bitter discussions on the article, it is that: forcing people to sit at a table and lay down these criteria once and for all. TRPOD seems to have sort of joined the effort, so I'm even more perplexed at his skepticism. Kww, wanna help? --cyclopia^speak! 00:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But if consensus can change, it can change in both directions, right? If six months is all it takes, then consider the consequences if there's another AFD and, due to the vagaries of the discussion and close, the article is deleted for once. Another six months then passes and it would then be ok to recreate the article, just like before, to test the state of consensus six months on, right? That's ok is it - that we have can have an infinite cycle of discussion, potential deletion and recreation? I'm thinking that the delete camp would soon change their tune if they managed to get the page deleted. They'd be talking WP:CSD G4 so that consensus would then be frozen, rather then allowed to change. This lack of symmetry would be grotesquely unjust per WP:SAUCE. Warden (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Warden. There is an intrinsic and unfair asymmetry between AfD and recreation. This general issue has to be taken into account when dealing with multiple AfD nominations. It seems that so far multiple deletion attempts are all jolly good, while attempting at overturning a deleted article are much harder and dimly seen. Again, I think it is correct to discourage further nominations unless at least one of article content, policy or deletion arguments have massively changed. --cyclopia^speak! 00:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all of very tangential relevance to the actual DRV and I suggest that we hat it.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually when something is renominated 6 months after it closes, it ends with the same results. I don't think everyone should have to keep going to the same AFD every six months, especially when its the same group of people renominating it and making the same exact arguments as before. Remember what happened the last time this was at AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (6th nomination) A few days after the previous one closed, PBP renominated it stating "Anything can be renominated immediately if it closes in no-consensus." Based on that, the closing administrator was justified in telling this small group of stubborn people not to renominate it for deletion yet again just to repeat the same process yet again. Dream Focus 01:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little known fact: Whenever Dream Focus and I edit the same AfD or DRV, he invariably finds some way to attack me. What should have happened was that AfD 5 should have relisted rather than closed as no consensus. If the relist had been done properly, I wouldn't have had to renominate it (and FWIW, this is exactly the place to discuss the proper closure of an AfD) Again, I remind you that consensus can change, and also that I didn't start either AfD 5 or 7. pbp 01:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change a few days after it closes? You participated in the 5th, it didn't go your way, so you started a 6th deletion discussion a few days later. Dream Focus 01:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed my point about relisting, i.e. letting it go on another week so more people can participate. Considering that more people voted in AfD 7 than AfD 5, it's likely that there would have been enough participants to discern a consensus had it been kept open longer. Not really any different from the DRVs you've started and admins you've pinged when articles you wanted kept were deleted. Anyway, this discussion is about AfD 7, not about AfD 5 or 6, and you clearly brought it up for the sole purpose of poo-pooing me, so it's time you stopped talking about it. pbp 01:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the only time you renominated something shortly after it closed. A repeating pattern occurs with you and a few other similar minded editors. You need to stop assuming everything is about you. The AFD was closed the way it was, because of previous AFDs for this topic, thus it relevant to mention that, regardless of who the person was that renominated it that quickly. Dream Focus 01:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, please stop. Deletion review is about closes----it's about content, and procedure. It can't help resolve difficulties between editors and it's explicitly a drama-free zone. We've gone far off track. Could we please return to discussing the merits and demerits of Coffee's close?—S Marshall T/C 02:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the close. The closing administrator made a point about people not renominating it again unless policy changed. Some protested this. I pointed out it was necessary, since someone had, after the 5th AFD ran its proper course and closed, renominated it a few days later. The fact that someone keeps insisting everyone is out to get him all the time, is not relevant. Some mentioned people should wait 6 months before renominating it, I mentioning a response to that at the start of this. Dream Focus 02:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could have easily worded it in such a way as to leave my name out of it. Instead of "PBP renominated it", you could have said "it was renominated", and left out the part about "this small group of stubborn people" altogether. The fact that you elected for a personal wording, combined with the previous interactions I've had from you, does lead me to the conclusion that you are attempting to harness this DRV to force embarrassment or sanctions upon me. Also consider my comment on Coffee's talk page: I'm perfectly fine with saying wait six months, even longer, and also fine with saying any of the previous participants can't renom. The problem I have is with the blanket statement about no renoms unless a very specific set of circumstances are met. pbp 02:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to mention you since I had to quote what you said there, that relevant here. And your wording and past interactions lead me to the conclusion you are just paranoid and ridiculous as usual. And you are still stubbornly determined to renominate this article yet again. Be it a few days or six months or longer, its still just gaming the system, trying the same thing until you get your way and wasting everyone's time. Dream Focus 02:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just said that I'd be fine with somebody saying that previous participants (which would include me, and you too) couldn't renom. That would suggest that I had no intention of renomming. So to claim that I am determined to renom is completely inaccurate, and again proves that you're commenting just to prove some point. There's a little gift waiting for you on your talk page pbp 03:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So someone else who wasn't there this time around will renominate it instead, but you'll still show up along with many others who participated this time, and everyone will make the same arguments as before. There is no reason to allow that. No policy was violated, therefore unless policy changes, no reason to allow this to repeat itself yet again. Dream Focus 03:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you will show up with the same non arguments. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, @Dream Focus:, you apparently want to ban anybody who voted "Delete" from any future discussions pertaining to the topic of unusual deaths (nevermind that that's an ANI matter, not a DRV manner). I assume you're also willing to ban yourself, Cyclopia, Warden, and anybody who voted "Keep" from future discussions as well? After all, that's only fair pbp 03:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we get that you don't get on now both of you stop the bickering or I'm going to close this early to end the disruption. Enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The rough consensus was to keep and the closer gave a good explanation of that. Later !votes were strongly towards "keep" so, unless there was some recruitment (and it doesn't look so to me), the earlier discussion seems to have persuaded people that "keep" was appropriate. Our convention at the XfDs is that we entertain all sorts of nomination, however ill-founded, closing only those that are grossly improper. Hence, I don't think the closer's ending remarks represent de facto policy. Thincat (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed by the Article Rescue Squadron, Thincat, which some may consider recruitment. The last part of your comment is unclear to me: do you support overturning that prohibition on future AFDs?—Kww(talk) 13:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely person to be recruited by ARS listing is Purplebackpack89 who can be relied upon to show up and !vote "strongest possible delete" in such cases. Warden (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I don't even vote in 40-50% percent of ARS noms! But Kww is correct in that an ARS tag reliably correlates to 3-4 extra keep votes. pbp 14:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic and stop insulting a Wikiproject you don't like with baseless accusations. You can look through the things listed now and see that they did not in fact bring in 3-4 keep votes to everything, some things getting no participates at all. People only respond to things that catch their interest. Dream Focus 14:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: (1) Not so much recruitment as a reveille to the standing army. The ARS was informed almost immediately the AfD was opened[5][6] so, if they were responding, their response was very delayed since the swing towards "keep" was several days after the AfD had been opened. I was actually going by the names of those !voting "keep", some of whom I recognised and not in an "inclusionist" context. (2) If the closer issued a prohibition of future AfDs I think he should not have done and I would not be supporting it. Thincat (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I actually think a lifetime limit of 3 AfDs is more reasonable than 7, but I think the closer has it right: the latter part of WP:NOTAGAIN applies, no matter how much a few people believe it ought not to. Jclemens (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to no consensus I agree a new nomination should not be made for a while (say, 1 year), but I don't think policy needs to change dramatically (or at all) to consider re-deleting this list, and I think the closer overstepped their bounds in so-declaring. The decision should be overturned because Coffee basically made a !supervote, with this phrase: "I can find no way that this list violates WP:IINFO and/or WP:LIST, per the criteria." - it is not up to the closing admin to decide whether the article in question violates a policy, it is up to the closer to weigh the arguments - and many people OTHER than Coffee did feel it violated WP:IINFO, because collecting a group of deaths just because some source used a synonym of "unusual" to describe them is inherently unencyclopedic and indiscriminate, and this argument was made by multiple participants. "Unusual" is simply too vague a term, that's the bottom line, and claiming it is equivalent to "strange" or "bizarre" is also a form of OR. The closer tossing those arguments out is tantamount to super voting. It was pointed out during the discussion that by the same reasoning that the !keep camp used, we could easily create List of beautiful actresses or List of customs considered weird or List of Mysterious People - or in the domain of death alone, we could create List of deaths considered tragic or List of deaths considered untimely or List of deaths considered sad or List of deaths considered suspicious or List of deaths considered sudden or List of deaths considered unexplained and so on, for dozens more adjective + noun combinations, and there are books and blogs that make exactly such lists, so the sourcing would be equivalent. But ultimately, this is not good for the enyclopedia, as it brings us down to the level of Ripley's Believe it or not and the Fortean times. I demonstrated in the AfD that we could source likely hundreds or even thousands of suicides as "unusual", and then could do the same for every other "common" means of death, like diabetes, myocardial infarction, stroke, cancer, and so on, and then we could go on to create List of unusual disease cases for examples where the lucky people survived! - but collecting cases where the medical community has used the word "unusual" to describe them, while easily sourceable, would lead to a list with thousands of articles and would serve no encyclopedic interest save a collection of deaths through a trivial intersection - the use of a single adjective. Overturn to no consensus, and let the next nom happen in a year.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are books about unusual deaths, and newspapers covering a list of the most unusual deaths in history, as have been found, then it a valid article. We do have other articles listing deaths that are seen as notable by reliable sources. List of entertainers who died during a performance, List of inventors killed by their own inventions, List of association footballers who died while playing, List of professional cyclists who died during a race, List of political self-immolations, and Death from laughter. For your example, the list of deaths considered suspicious or list of deaths considered unexplained, we have List of unsolved deaths. Also a list of the most beautiful actresses might work, I Googling it and finding plenty of coverage. Whenever anyone who has an article is on one of those list of most beautiful women, from any reliable source, it gets mentioned in their article. Look at Angelina Jolie for instance, it even in the lead. Dream Focus 19:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, there are books about all of those *other* types of deaths as well - but that doesn't mean we should hence have such an article. Again, for: list of <adjective> <nouns> we could come up with thousands of such lists, but most would be non-encyclopedic, because description-by-a-vague-adjective is not a sufficient criteria for us to create a list. The other lists of deaths you have above are all much more specifically sourced and not based on single adjective, they are all based on actual facts in the case - e.g. "Is X a performer? Did they die during a performance" or "Was X killed? Have investigators thus far been unable to determine the killer? (and for that list, I note that as soon as the case is solved, it would be removed - but NOTHING that I can see could cause a death to be removed from "List of unusual deaths"). As for the actresses, please create it, I would estimate it will not last longer than a few days. List of big-bust models and performers was deleted and the deletion upheld, as were other similar lists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but most would be non-encyclopedic, because description-by-a-vague-adjective is not a sufficient criteria for us to create a list. - I hate to bring this up again, but (1)"non encyclopedic" is a circular fallacious reasoning (2)the attempt to modify policy to bring your argument in policy has completely failed consensus. Anyway, when all this mess of AfDs and DRV settles, I will consider DRV-ing the list of big bust models and performers (and another couple) for recreation: not that I care much about the topic, honestly, but I agree the issue is similar and thus there should be consistency. --cyclopia^speak! 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not fallacious; you will see such an argument often forwarded. WP:NOT was developed exactly to outline a list of examples of things considered non-encyclopedic, and that is a POLICY. Again, this particular close should be overturned, b/c the closer !supervoted and decided that WP:NOT did not apply, even though almost all of the delete !votes referenced WP:NOT or subsections thereof. The fact that a particular example of this sort of list was not provided in WP:NOT is not grounds to say this policy doesn't apply, and that fact that an overly aggressive attempt to modify LISTN failed does not mean the argument failed consensus - indeed, there was NO consensus (thus this should be a no consensus close).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fallacy, for two reasons. (1) WP:NOT exists to list the cases where we know that something is, indeed, not considered encyclopedic: but these cases have been determined and listed by consensus. You can't use WP:NOT as a policy umbrella to justify removing everything you personally think is not "encyclopedic". The fact that a particular example of this sort of list was not provided in WP:NOT is not grounds to say this policy doesn't apply - Yes, it is grounds instead. There is a reason WP:NOT lists so many cases in detail. Everything not listed there is either backed up by massive consensus (and thus probably would go end up as a further comma of WP:NOT) or it is simply a statement of the fact you do not like the article(s). That is why the close is not a !supervote. It simply reasoned that !votes claimed to be backed up by policy, but actually weren't. It's like dealing with !votes referring to WP:BLP on the AfD of a long-dead person, or of an asteroid: yes, such hypothetical !votes would link policy, but it would be ridiculous to claim them as "policy based" and to give them any weight. To sum up, you would have had a better case by simply calling WP:IAR: at least that would have been intellectually honest (but again it would require massive consensus to be enacted, and it would have needed to show strongly that it improved the encyclopedia). (2) About that an overly aggressive attempt to modify LISTN failed does not mean the argument failed consensus - indeed, there was NO consensus, that's really twisting logic and facts. The attempt was to modify WP:NOT in addition to WP:LISTN, and the argument failed consensu: or better, there was a clear consensus against changing the policies to introduce that concept. This in turn reinforces the fact that you cannot claim WP:NOT for cases not linked explicitly without a strong consensus backing you: that interpretation of WP:NOT has been soundly refused by the community. --cyclopia^speak! 22:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, that's just wrong wrong wrong. You need to read this section: Wikipedia:NOT#And_finally... which explicitly states that this is not a complete list, and there are many *other* bad ideas that should not be in wikipedia. In any case, WP:IINFO clearly states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." - since the word "unusual" (or its pseudo-synoynms, bizarre or weird) is so vague, any collection of deaths joined only by that adjective is by definition INDISCRIMINATE. When I said "there was no consensus", I meant at the delete discussion, not the VPP discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can repeat "wrong" as many times as you like, Obi-Wan: it still doesn't add up to an argument. Yes, I know about the "And finally..." section: and that's why I didn't say that WP:NOT flat out excludes anything it doesn't list. I said, instead, that if you want to bring forward that an idea is "terrible", you need consensus for it, and a very solid one, to go so far as to remove an entire class of articles that survived several AfDs so far. Such a consensus has been explicitly show to have been rejected (even if you are again beating the poor dead horse). That the adjective "unusual" is "so vague" is frankly just your opinion, and again not a consensual one. Context and independent sources for entries in the list have been shown to be abundant -first and foremost by the academic sources you yourself brought to the table. --cyclopia^speak! 23:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go into why Unusual (and its various synonyms) are vague and poorly defined, and if you didn't realize that the medical examples were meant as a counter example, demonstrating deaths Fortean times would consider very usual while calling them unusual, then you sort of missed the point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did realize your point very well. It's not my fault if what you brought as a counterexample was instead an excellent argument in favour of this list. Boomerangs. --cyclopia^speak! 23:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I closed this early under the mistaken belief that PBP was the nominator and his request on my talk page was akin to a withdrawn nomination. Clearly I was mistaken so lets leave this to fester for a few more days before another admin comes along and closes it. Apologies to everyone for interrupting your feud. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• How soon we can renominate depends on the situation. We need to differentiate between the practice of renominating until there happens to bye a temporary consensus for deletion, from renominating to test whether consensus has changed. I don;t think the closer was logical in saying we shouldn't renominate until we had proved that consensus had changed, because how else are we to determine that but by another discussion? Nor need a renom show a change of policy -- something like this is more likely to be a matter of interpretation. In this particular instance, with a number of non-consensus closings, rather than a string of keeps, I would probably suggest trying again in 18 or 24 months--after all, if one wants to delete the article, the last thing one would want is another successive keep closing, and it's wise to give consensus a chance to actually change.

Non-consensus closes are different -- they can be relisted immediately, but there's usually little point in that, because waiting a month or two is much more likely to give an AfD that does reach consensus one way or another. If there's a strong case for deletion for a BLP or the like, and the close was nonetheless nonconsensus, a shorter time might be appropriate, but this situation is not usual, because such a close is likely to be overturned here to either delete or relist. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you relist it as a new AFD? Just expand the existing one another week if you think it would matter, no sense everyone just repeating the same thing they just said over again. Dream Focus 19:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as keep, but remove the claim that no future AFDs can be open. The closure as keep is correct in that current policy and guidelines do not necessary prevent articles like this, but I would strong urge those that maintain it to improve the sourcing requirements to avoid it appearing like trivia. As for the claim that no future AFDs can be opened, I think this is excessive, even if there's no policy change. It is the strength of the nomination that matters. If someone comes and renoms on a simple claim of IINFO, yes, that would be reason to quickly close the AFD as that's the same argument. But if someone gives a much better rationale to start, that's a valid reason to continue the AFD until normal closure. --MASEM (t) 01:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus - The AfD close states the list membership criteria is that the item in the list needs to be referenced to sources that express the subjective opinion that the death is unusual. That AFD Keep consensus membership criteria fails WP:LSC, since it uses a source's subjective opinion about the term "unusual", which itself has several possible meanings because it relies on personal/regional perspective/experience, and is not based reliable sources that support use of such membership criteria. The inability of editors of the article to write a list selection criteria is not a basis to close the AfD with additional hurdles to relisting the article at AfD, particularly when the current/consensus list selection criteria leaves readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria to where editors have to guess at what may or may not be added to the list. Rather than a basis to close as keep, it is a basis to find no consensus or delete. List articles such as List of musical works in unusual time signatures and List of unusual units of measurement appear to be capable of complying WP:LSC because one of the two intersection elements is quantifiable. While the literal end of life is quantifiable, (i) the act of dying and (ii) a requirement that the act itself be uncommon in amount or degree creates an intersection of two variables in which neither is quantifiable. Until the list can comply with WP:LSC, editors will continue to disagree as to whether Wikipedia should have a list on the topic. That disagreement is clear from the AfD itself. Since the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly and the strength of the delete arguments did not overcome the keep arguments, overturn to no consensus. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly the case. WP:LSC explicitly tackles the case of subjective membership criteria, and explicitly makes "list of unusual X" as an example: "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." Everything else is your own opinion on what the sources should indicate, which is fair, but it is more of an issue about content to be dealt with editing. --cyclopia^speak! 13:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially in cases where the membership criteria are subjective, the membership criteria itself should be based on reliable sources. No one has come forth with an expert's definition on what is an unusual death world wide over all time, so no one has come forward with reliable sources on which to base the membership criteria per WP:LSC. The lists of unusual things links to the joke page Wikipedia:Unusual articles as an example of what does not meet WP:LSC. Regarding the other example terrorist incidents, accepted expert definitions of non-state terrorism do exist whereas the AFD Keep consensus membership criteria fails WP:LSC for the reasons I noted above. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• absolutely overturn the rider the admin's reaching beyond the scope of policy and individual admin discretion to forbid any additional AfDs, particularly when such a question was not the one up for debate. I have not seen that the admin has been able to show rationale for xir claim of "no basis for WP:IINFO" ; that does not seem to be a consensus in the discussion itself, and therefor is the use of a super!vote, and therefore there is certainly not a consensus to "keep". overturn the close position to either "no consensus" or "delete". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrator reply: If you're making the argument that I used my own opinions to close the discussion in a manner akin to a "supervote", I regret to inform you that you have absolutely no clue as to what my principles are on the encyclopedic nature of this site (I would invite you to click on the link in my signature labeled "essay" to see that if I was going off of my principles or ideology on this matter I would have deleted it in a heartbeat... but being an administrator means that I throw away my preconceived notions and become a medium for consensus). Nor do you understand that in closing these types of discussions, administrators do not count votes, but instead weigh the overall arguments based on policy and then decide whether or not the article is within the community's already prescribed inclusion criteria. In this way, it prevents small pockets of people from manipulating particular articles of their interest, on to or in this case off of the encyclopedia. - I held to this standard with my decision on WP:IINFO's relevance to the article, by simply reading more than the title of the section linked. While the title "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" could easily be misconstrued (as it was in this AFD) to subjectively mean that anything certain editors don't like is inherently an indiscriminate collection of information, the actual content of the section is very different. In fact, once one actually reads the community policy below the title it becomes impossible to make the stated misinterpretation, as the policy has a very clear definition spelled out regarding what actually falls into this. And that definition cannot be misinterpreted, in any possible way (by someone with intelligence), to mean that this article does not comply with community policy. Therefore, I suggest you re-read the policy and then reevaluate how you got to your conclusions on my close. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did "read more than the title" - I read "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." There are no sources that are putting the deaths into context of " How unusual are these deaths on the Ripley scale of 1 to 100?" or any context. Some are a single reporter who happened to use the term "unusual", some are because the story happened to run in the section called "News of the Weird", some because they are in a book called "101 Bizarre Deaths" or "Odd Celebrity Deaths" - but there is no context in any of the sources that I have seen as to how the deaths are "unusual". And there is certainly not any consistent application of what is considered "unusual"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closing administrator reply: Note that I didn't say you hadn't read past the title... but instead made the point that, I as the closing administrator had (I'm really getting tired of spelling out simple, simple logic). But from that point on what you're saying here is completely reliant on only your own perception. The article clearly meets the above stated point of the policy by creating the context of reliably sourced deaths considered to be unusual from the entire societal perspective. Putting it into ridiculous scales such as "How unusual are these deaths on the Ripley scale of 1 to 100?", in no way meets the intention of that policy as scales have nothing to do with that context, and therefore that point is irrelevant. And no where does the policy state that the data has to be put into finley defined constructs of context, as you seem to be insinuating. However, that doesn't mean that a set list of inclusion criteria can't be perfected, and obviously I'm for that as I made clear in my closing statement. But the article not being perfect yet is not a good reason for it's deletion... and neither are logically fallacious interpretations of policy. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close Can't get more astute and spot-on as that particular close. The plaintiff here (who really should know better), seems to misunderstand the word "should". "Further nominations should be closed" is wise words of advice, not an ex cathedra decree. There is nothing in the closer's caveat that forbids re-nomination, or makes the speedy close of such a nomination binding. Surely Kww understands this. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - I have to agree with the closer on this one; how many failed attempts is enough? BOZ (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing administrator comment: Although I attempted to make this abundantly clear here in my second point (above), it seems that many are, either disingenuously or not, still misinterpreting my closing note that "all further nominations should be closed as violations of WP:DELAFD unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD". Clearly, I cannot force nor decree a fellow administrator do anything let alone immediately close a future AFD. Therefore, I'm compelled to point out the distinct importance of the word should in this context. If I had said "will" that would have dictated an expected method of reactionary behavior to the set conditions laid out, and that is an authority which I obviously do not have in this context (of course this changes if we're talking about community bans, etc). But, I did not. I used the word should. And I used it to advise what I, as the medium for consensus, saw as the best course of action for a future administrator to take. Regardless of the precedent, the amount of weight my closing note has is this: a sanctioning of future closes being done early in a manner coherent with consensus and policy. In other words, this means that administrator X can allow any future debate to go through it's normal timeline of discussion before closure without any perceived change in community consensus, but that this should not be done as this is a waste of the community's time. And on the flip side, this means that administrator Y can close a future debate early if they so choose, and they should do so, as this out-of-process action is clearly sanctioned by the long-term community consensus. - I don't think I can spell it out any more clearly than this. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, I think the people who object to that part object for reasons other than choice of modal auxiliary. They object to the part about "unless there is new or changed policy backing the AFD", because it seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia:Consensus can change, and consensus can change even if policy doesn't. If you had predicated it by adding in a time frame where deletion would be unwise (say, a year), people would have probably felt more comfortable with it. pbp 16:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing administrator reply: I find it only necessary to state that policy is no more than a reflection of current site-wide consensus, so if consensus ever changes enough for this article to be deleted there shouldn't be any problem in making that edit to policy. In this case we're arguing semantics where the context has already clearly been established, which is pointless. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's still an overreach, Coffee. You dismissed all delete votes as being not based in policy, despite there being a reasonable opposing view that it is the "keep" camp that has a tenuous grasp on policy. You closed the AFD as if it were a slam-dunk "keep" when it sits on the keep/no-consensus boundary. After that, you placed a statement that makes it sound as if it is a given that it is the "delete" camp that is wasting time, when, again, there is a reasonable perspective that would point the blame for any "time wasting" on the "keep" camp. The article doesn't keep coming up for deletion because it is a sterling example of what Wikipedia articles should be, after all, and a series of "no consensus" retentions doesn't pave a strong argument for saying that every future AFD will inevitably result in a "keep."—Kww(talk) 16:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing administrator reply: What you're arguing here is that I should have gone directly against the logic in WP:SUPPORT, WP:ADHOM, and WP:FALLACY, in my close. To be quite honest, I'm not certain how to reply to that. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggested no such thing. I do suggest, however, that those policies apply as or more strongly to the arguments being used to keep the article as they do to those arguing for its deletion.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing administrator reply: Stating "a reasonable opposing view that it is the "keep" camp that has a tenuous grasp on policy", is actually suggesting exactly what I just stated. Simply saying that's not the case, doesn't actually make it so. (See: Reality.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think suggesting that arguments based on using the Fortean Times as a reliable source, accusing the nominator of saying "hey, let's nominate something I don't like again and again till it goes away", or pointing at coverage in Time magazine are based on a firm grasp of policy, I don't know how to answer that, either. You suggested in your keep that an RFC was the answer to solving the inability to agree on the inclusion criteria. If you are so certain that further AFDs are likely to generate the same result as the previous ones, why do you think a new RFC would be any more successful at generating an agreed upon set of inclusion criteria than the failed on sitting on the talk page? Why do you expect further discussion of that topic to suddenly be productive?—Kww(talk) 19:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing administrator reply: I'm beginning to think you can't make arguments for this outside of logical fallacy, and inside reality. You've now built a ridiculous straw man where I somehow "[suggested] arguments based on ... pointing at coverage in Time magazine are based on a firm grasp of policy", which means either you are inept at reading where I stated in the close "the article being mentioned in Time magazine has absolutely no impact on our decision making here, and thereby that is a completely irrelevant argument for keeping this list", or you are being deliberately disingenuous. As you've been on this site long enough to be an administrator, I think it is obvious that it is the latter. And with that realization in mind, I'm going to stop wasting my time spelling things out for you. I suggest you, likewise, stop wasting the community's time. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And you are correct: you did dismiss the worst of the arguments (the "Time magazine" one). The arguments about OR and RS that you dismissed remain relevant, and your flat statement that there are no policy-based arguments for deletion remains false.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing administrator reply: Fallacious logical conclusions don't magically become sound logic just because you say they are or want them to be. Especially when you have not been able to present any empirical evidence to make your case. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What empirical evidence would satisfy you? That there has never been a stable set of inclusion criteria? No, because you said that didn't matter (unless I misinterpret "stating that there isn't a good enough inclusion criteria yet are also terrible reasons for deletion"). You state that there should be an RFC to settle them, which leads me to believe that you expect one could come to a satisfactory conclusion. 101 months since the first AFD and a failed RFC sitting on the talk page as we speak would tend to argue against that. "Calling the article 'crap'" may be colloquial and colorful, but it falls under WP:NOT#And finally... pretty neatly. That the majority of contributions made over time have been original research requires only a critical examination of its history. That the current contents after efforts to purge unreliable information out of the article still contain warnings that the content is likely to be apocryphal and that it still contains deaths by such unremarkable means as scalding, accidental poisoning, a ruptured appendix from a stomach blow, and a submarine accident, frequently supported by links like like http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/365923.stm which make no claim to "unusual" at all show the trouble the article remains in after eight years. You dismiss obvious truth as "fallacious": the article doesn't meet sourcing standards, never has met sourcing standards, and is unlikely to ever meet sourcing standards. You are right that there's a substantial portion of the community that doesn't view that as a reason to delete, but to dismiss the argument that it should be deleted because of it as "fallacious" and give zero weight to the deletion arguments is so extreme as to be wrong. That's the core of my objection here. Do I give the "keep" arguments too little weight? Perhaps. But you have the opposite problem: you write as if the deletion arguments are baseless when they are clearly well-founded.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How many times can you rehash a number of issues that are to be solved by editing, claims of WP having some mysterious deadline and your usual "I really hate this article" crap as a "clearly well-founded" argument? WP:NOT#And finally... is not a cogent argument unless you have massive consensus that it is, indeed, a terrible idea -something that clearly isn't, as several discussions (on the AfD, here, and WP:VPP have conclusively shown). Linking a policy or even believing that you are making an argument based on policy is not the same of actually making a cogent policy-based !vote. Saying "delete per WP:BLP" on the AfD of an asteroid does not make a cogent policy-based !vote, no matter how strongly you believe that asteroids are people; same here for IINFO and such. --cyclopia^speak! 12:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, your responses here have only solidified my opinion that this was a supervote. I've read through the deletion discussion again, and found very few, if any, keep votes that challenges WP:IINFO or WP:NOT, which was cited by several people. The text is quite clear - wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and grouping together deaths just because some random journalist called it "unusual" is a classic example of indiscriminate information. You may disagree, but that's not your job as closing admin, you're supposed to weigh the arguments that were given. As such, your dismissal of the WP:NOT arguments made repeatedly by the delete camp is a form of supervote, because the keep camp did not mount a strong defense against same. Indeed, I would have tossed out many of their "keep" votes, many of which amounted to "Its a popular list and interesting" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing administrator reply: I'm not going to continuously repeat myself here, and I'm getting tired of hearing the same biased answers from the both of you (not that I expected differently as you both !voted in the AFD itself and made such terrible arguments there that I even had to rule them out specifically in my closing statement). So I'm not going to bother to continue replying past this point, as it serves absolutely no purpose other than making you look more legitimate. At any rate, I'm sure the admin who closes this will be able to decipher for themselves whether this was done inside the realms of policy or not, and so far I would say the vast majority of people here think it was. Good luck, and I hope you all can find ways to actually improve this site instead of wasting people's time in the future. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 14:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Coffee, the arguments aren't terrible, you simply disagree with them, and you let your personal disagreement make you overreach in your close. If you look through this discussion, you will see that a substantial number of people that didn't participate in the AFD think your close was an overrreach.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I am on the side of User:Obiwankenobi and User:Kww here. The closing administrator didn't explain why he believed that the article didn't fail the policy against indiscriminate information; he just dismissed the argument out of hand, and continues to dismiss it with straw man arguments. (WP:BLP on an article about an asteroid? Please.) Ultimately, I agree with the spirit of the closure, but disagree with the letter. Yes, the article should not be nominated for deletion again without a good reason. Yes, the (no) consensus can change, but the burden of proof is on the nominator. No, you can't demand policy change and say that barring that any further nominations can be summarily closed. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing administrator replying against his own better judgement: @Mike Rosoft: I'm afraid you've now created two straw man arguments here, which I can't just let slip by. The first is obvious, as instead of actually building a policy backed argument against my close or presenting ways that I've somehow built "straw man arguments", you decided to create a ridiculously imagined situation between an asteroid article and our BLP policy (and before you say, "wait, he didn't speak to my point on how he threw out the relevance of WP:IINFO"... I point you to exhibit a and b, which were readily available days before your comment here). The second straw man is built in your final sentence, where you're claiming to make an argument against my close that I already made twice by myself (one at the very begining of this DRV, and the other again days before your comment here) to fortify my closing rational from further confusion. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize for the asteroid part; this comment wasn't made by you, but by User:Cyclopedia. With regards to your restriction on further deletion nominations, please note that I have clarified my position on it. (See my comment near the bottom of this page.) Yes, I am aware that that the restriction isn't binding, and that you never intended it to be binding. But still, I hold that it's too strict. I say: If it can be demonstrated that the (no) consensus has changed, e.g. on the article talk page or by analogy with similar articles, the article can be re-nominated for deletion - policy change or not. Still, this isn't likely to happen in the near future, so the article probably shouldn't be nominated for deletion in the near future. (As I have said: I agree with the spirit of your close, but not with the letter.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Exceptionally thoughtful closure. The repeated sniping at this article's existence, in the face of multiple AfDs to the contrary, has created a hostile editing environment at this page that is bad for the page and bad for the encyclopedia. It's time to call a halt to it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. I especially liked the way that the closer tagged the article as closing and then closed it over an hour later. This and the detailed closing statement indicates that some time and trouble was taken — it wasn't a snap-judgement or cookie-cutter close. Well done, Coffee. Warden (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse closing. i am not going to indulge in the inane wikilawyering going on here. i will instead point out that it is the cancer that is killing the encyclopedia (and of you voting, who of you were actually here during the great flamewars of 2006 that led to this problem? i was.) and that this article is not worth having this much disagreement about. there is an abundance of articles which should be considered first and i find it repulsive that so much effort has been spent on this particular page. ... jane avriette:talk 18:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you are certainly right "http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ Among the significant problems that aren’t getting resolved is the site’s skewed coverage: its entries on Pokemon and female porn stars are comprehensive, but its pages on female novelists or places in sub-Saharan Africa are sketchy. Authoritative entries remain elusive."] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure: because we all know the lack of entries on female novelists are a direct consequence of the existence of this article. "I wanted to edit the article on Doris Lessing, but then List of unusual deaths appeared and I couldn't write anymore." --cyclopia^speak! 12:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fully endorse. Frankly, all this fuss about having an already-survived-to-seven-AfDs-article nominated for deletion for the eighth time sounds ridicule. Spend your efforts in most important topics and questions. Cavarrone 19:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully endorse. The admonition on future AfDs is just an admonition, and a wise one. We have articles to write and improve, leave this one alone for a bit if you can't handle it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Arxiloxos. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Arxiloxos, Cavarrone, and Milowent. It's time to drop the WP:STICK. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and per Tarc, infra. postdlf (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - At the end of the day (a trite phrase, but...), I think we have to acknowledge that people can disagree with your opinion without being necessarily wrong; it's ok to look at a topic and conclude "this doesn't satisfy what I think an encyclopedia is for", just as it is ok to think "there are sources out there and that is enough". So we present our sides in a deletion discussion and let a 3rd party, usually an admin, close the discussion and determine who has made the better arguments, which cite policies and guidelines and such to support their argument, and what the numbers are (a lesser concern, but we all know it plays a small part). Rough count puts at 15 to delete and 25 to keep; the deletes generally fell to WP:NOT and the keeps generally point to reliable sourcing for "unusual deaths" noting that it has been a topic of interest over time. A quibble or two about an occult/fantastic-based aside, there's really nothing substantially wrong with either position. So by the numbers and fact that this was the 7th trip to AfD, there's a significant hurdle to overcome to achieve deletion here. One would have to show that something substantial has changed, e.g. policy-wise, from the time of the last discussion. That didn't happen here. Tarc (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The point is that the nomination has merit. However, there is currently no consensus to delete the article, and there is little chance of this changing. Endorse as a no consensus keep. I disagree with the closing admin's claim that any further nominations can be summarily closed barring a policy change. However, I agree that the article should not be nominated for deletion again without a good reason; there's little point in arguing back and forth whether or not the article should be deleted, when the next nomination would in all likelihood be once again closed as a no consensus keep. (The bar should be something like "consensus on the talk page that the page is unsalvageable, or shift of community conventions and interpretations of policies towards deleting similar pages", not something nigh impossible as a policy change.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • TLDR: The article should have been closed as a no consensus keep, not demanding something nearly impossible as a policy change for further nominations, but requiring a heavy burden of proof on the side of the nominator that the (no) consensus has changed. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse but rephrase I think Coffee's comment should read something like "Bringing this article back to AfD absent relevant policy changes would likely be disruptive given the large number of AfDs thus far". Making it clear it's not part of the close per se, but rather the closer's (rather relevant) opinion. I think that's what he was going for in any case. Hobit (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is decided, as it seems to be overwhelmingly so thus far, that it is disrupt to send this to AFD yet again by those determined to delete it, can we also agree it is disruptive for those who argue constantly to delete the article, to keep trying to delete as much as possible from the article, and arguing on the talk page nonstop about the same issues? If consensus has proved it is not original research, can they still argue that it is, CONSTANTLY, on the talk page, or and we can agree it is disruptive to refuse to let that one issue go? Dream Focus 17:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that those who failed to get it deleted at any of the past AFD or deletion review, or them arguing for months/years on the talk page, are now trying to delete most/all on the things on the list by claiming a reporter saying something was "unusual" fails WP:NPOV by giving WP:UNDUE weight. Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths#list_items_-_contesting_many_of_the_entries If its disrupt to keep trying to delete in one AFD after another in a short period of time, can it also be declared disruptive to try to delete it by other means as well? Dream Focus 17:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Irrelevant. This discussion is about whether the article should be kept, not what goes in the article if it's kept. pbp 17:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Its about the article being kept and the conditions against disruptively trying to delete it again with another AFD for the exact same issues without anything new having changed. But deleting it in AFD, or deleting it by normal editing methods, is still deleting it. It is disruptive when you fail to delete it by one method, rushing straight away to try to get it deleted by another. Dream Focus 18:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Having the article kept doesn't mean it automatically gets to be kept exactly the way you want it. I again remind you that bringing up matters that don't have to do with the AfD (and article content is one of them) is disruptive at this location, and either belongs on the article's talk page or at ANI. If you don't realize that, you may need to stop editing on this Wikipedia pbp 18:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pbp has a point (even if calling for "need to stop editing" are a bit beyond the pale). @Dream Focus:, disputes about article content are unrelated to disputes about article existence. While I strongly disagree the arguments of some editors make sense for deletion, I don't think they are to discard when discussing improvement of the article.--cyclopia^speak! 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fully endorse. More closes prohibiting further AfDs please! One of the most disheartening things about Wikipedia is the way deletionists are able to relentlessly renominate their target until finally not enough sensible voters turn up to save the article from destruction. From an editor retention perspective, an inverse equivalent to salt has been long needed. I felt Coffee's discounting of page views as a keep reason was a little strong -other wise the close was word perfect, and couldn't have summed up the policy based consensus any better. Bravo! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close 100%. The two sides in the most recent AfD debate share precious little common ground, disagreeing not only about the merits of the article but also about certain fundamentals of core content policy. Both sides argued in good faith and made valid points, but the closing administrator concluded—correctly, I believe—that one side had both the greater numbers and the better argument. If this had been the first or perhaps the second AfD, a no-consensus close would have been reasonable, but it was the seventh. At some point, the losers in a long-running fight need to either come up with grounds on which to argue or else stop arguing; to keep arguing on the same grounds becomes a purely disruptive exercise in WP:IDHT. This close acknowledged that, and stated it elegantly. I hope it will be upheld in full. Rivertorch (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully and absolutely endorse close Three AfDs are enough. Seven is just plain disruptive. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that I personally think should not exist, but if the community wishes them to stay, I move along. I think a notice should be placed on the article's talk page that any further AfD's will be considered disruptive, will be immediately closed and may result in sanctions. In any event, I fully support and endorse the actions of Administrator Coffee. Safiel (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also, I should note that I am a totally neutral party. I have never viewed or edited the article in question and just happened to come across this discussion while viewing something else. Safiel (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, we've put up with 41 deletion discussions for a particular page. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - the closer rightly doesn't weight highly a delete argument that lacks either facts or policy to support it. While the precedents for number of allowable AfDs is a little higher than this, *ahem*, repeatedly renominations of articles for deletion because you don't like them based on nothing at all is a disruptive practice. The rider only says "should not be nominated again", not must not, which is absolutely correct - it's just a statement of WP:SPIDERMAN. So - nothing to see here. WilyD 11:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer dissected every major reoccurring argument that was present in that AfD without much bias, that also means that some of the keep arguments also were dismissed with explanation. We were headed down a path in that AfD where it was clear the article was not going to be deleted either way, and frankly since this is the third AfD that this article has faced in 6 months, I would also agree that future AfD proposals should be dismissed unless some unprecedented change in policy occurs which would alter the validity of the keep arguments. Policy and consensus could change over time, but given the number of AfDs this article has been the focus of it seems this is a "pitch till you win" kind of thing, and that is ultimately disruptive.LM2000 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, close was within the closing admin's remit. Even though I don't personally care for articles like this, there have been three nominations in the past six months with essentially the same rationale, none of which have been successful. A fourth would be a waste of the community's time and a prime example of flogging a dead horse. I suggest those still agitating for deletion here just let it go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse the outcome of retention. I detest the article and its contents but cannot let that influence my view on the thoughtful closing summary and outcome. I chose not to offer an opinion either way on the article in any of the discussions on deletion because of my dislike for such lists, but could see no policy reason to delete it. Some entries, yes, but the list, no. I realise that is straying into the territory of discussing the article. I present it here solely to set my endorsement into perspective. Fiddle Faddle 14:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: As I see it, there is little to discuss in this deletion review. There is no way in hell the deletion debate would have been closed as a "delete", and very few people would argue it should have been (I count one such a vote). Rather, the problematic part is a comment that was seen as an attempt to unilaterally impose a restriction on further nominations of this article for deletion, but the closing administrator has clarified that this wasn't his intention. (See his "16:17, 5 November 2013" comment.) Handling of repetitive nominations of the same article for deletion, as well as handling of similar lists, should be better taken to a request for comments. (The attempt to change the inclusion criteria in the middle of the deletion debate was exactly the wrong way to do it, and ultimately doomed from the start. Remember, guys: discussion first, policy/guideline change then.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the "exactly the wrong way to do it" comment. A discussion on changing policy can be started at any time. pbp 14:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is what can be done, and there is what should be done. --cyclopia^speak! 15:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, this wasn't really discussion, just an attempt to arbitrarily change the inclusion criteria in the middle of the deletion debate. If there's no consensus to apply this principle in the deletion debate for a single article, there's no way in hell it could be formalized as a policy/guideline! (And that's coming from somebody who believes that such lists do not belong in an encyclopedia.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This article should be deleted because there is no objective criterion for including items. Hence it is just original research in violation of policy. One hopes that at some point an AfD will be successful. TFD (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the fact that your comment isn't germane to the purpose of the DRV forum, "objective criterion" is not a requirement for lists. Recent attempts to expressly make it so were soundly rejected at VPP. postdlf (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - According to the AfD close -- "As long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual." -- information from all of the following can be added to the Wikipedia list:

• New Check Planned On Unusual Deaths In Cyanide Inquiry, New York Times, June 23, 1986, retrieved November 12, 2013
• Ten Unusual Deaths, Miami Herald, July 27, 1987, retrieved November 12, 2013
• Manny Garcia (May 12, 1991), Violent Deaths Unusual In Gables, Miami Herald, retrieved November 12, 2013
• Alessandra Stanley (August 9, 1995), Deadly Risks For Russian Vips Unusual Deaths Plague Country's Movers, Shakers, San Francisco Chronicle from NYT, retrieved November 12, 2013
• Michael Romano (August 25, 1995), Other States Keep 'Unusual Deaths' Secret But Some Officials Say That Kind Of Information Is Part Of Public Record, Rocky Mountain News, retrieved November 12, 2013
• Jason Felch and John Ingold (July 23, 2003), Possible links to slaying probed Unusual deaths in family's past, Denver Post, retrieved November 12, 2013
• Attila the Hun, died of a nosebleed, Al Capone, died of syphilis, Jim Fixx, author of the book The Complete Book of Running died from running, Olivia Goldsmith, died from a chin tuck, novelist Sherwood Anderson, died from swallowing a toothpick.
• Jen Graves (October 7, 2010), "Fascinated by Unusual Deaths", The Stranger, vol. 20, no. 5, p. 25, retrieved November 12, 2013
• Kathleen Lavey (September 30, 2013), Lansing cemetery tour shares stories of unusual deaths, Lansing State Journal, retrieved November 12, 2013

There is much more out there. How can it be said that the AfD close complies with MoS:List selection criteria or that editors should be restricted from pursuing AfD beyond the time (3 months to relist at AfD?) restriction place by a Keep close? -- Jreferee (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have all noticed the article has problems. This does not mean it needs to be deleted. --cyclopia^speak! 16:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's an argument that the deletionists have raised - if editors haven't been able to agree on inclusion criteria in almost 10 years, what chance is there that they will now? You see, this argument works both ways. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a mistake to delete articles when editors can't agree on inclusion criteria. Because that creates an incentive for certain users to wrangle incessantly about inclusion criteria.—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The failure to reach consensus is not a problem with the article itself. It won't be easy but someone who is trusted would put forward proposed options that represent the core group's views, then place those options in an RfC and advertise it widely so outsiders with no vested interest can weigh in. The attention brought by this AfD/RfC is a perfect time to do it. Wikipedia has solved more difficult problems. I suspect one reason consensus was never reached is as S Marshall suggests, there are parties unwilling to accept the article's existence and wrangle for no criteria option being acceptable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors routinely disagree on inclusion criteria for the various "List of Jewish..." lists in the project, but deletion is never considered in those cases. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damn those certain users! They always get in the way of everything by insisting that people actually take WP:RS seriously. Think of what fun we could have making List of ugly women or List of funny-looking hairdos if we didn't have to worry that were no sources that have a reputation for reliably making the determination that a woman was ugly or that a hairdo was funny looking. Or that a particular death was unusual.—Kww(talk) 03:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the key problem that the deletionists cite. How do you determine that something is unusual? If you used a quasi-criterion that "I can't define what is unusual, but I know it when I see it", you'd get an unencyclopedic list based on somebody's private opinion. If you tried to come with an objective criteria of unusualness, you'd get original research. So we're left with basing the list on that a particular writer or journalist happening to use the word "unusual" to describe the death; to me, this is an indiscriminate listing (trivia). And if we don't accept every such a mention, what are reliable sources for calling something unusual? I say: there's no such thing, precisely because "unusual" is a fundamentally subjective description. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The list and close obviously complies with MoS:List selection criteria as this provides explicit guidance on "lists of unusual things". It could hardly be clearer that such lists are expected and acceptable. Warden (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the "unusual lists" are expressly mentioned in the manual of style, but the question still remains: what reliable source is there for something being "unusual"? (I'd say that the guideline not so much sanctions their existence, as acknowledges that such lists exist on Wikipedia and tries to regulate their contents. The other example - List of terrorist incidents - is fundamentally different. "Terrorism" is a legal term found in the criminal law of many countries; there also exist draft definitions in international law. As such, there are reliable sources that can be used to justify inclusion of a particular attack in the list; for instance, a court verdict finding somebody guilty of terrorism.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you link to a page which contradicts the point that you assert. The list of terrorist incidents says plainly, "There is no single accepted definition of non-state terrorism in common use, so incidents listed here are restricted to those that ... [are] commonly called terrorism". So, this is not a fundamental difference. It is, in fact, exactly the same method used here. You could hardly be more wrong. Warden (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as well within admin discretion, per Tarc's arguments. The close is reasonably well explained, although I wouldn't object to Hobit's suggestion for a rephrasing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]