Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-natural death

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW delete. There's no benefit keeping this open for two more days given that the outcome is obvious. ‑ Iridescent 18:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-natural death[edit]

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

Non-natural death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · death Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a bucket list with a weird and incoherent mix of things which have caused human death. There's no coherence in its scope; in date ranges chosen; in geographic locales. There's no very good logic nor criteria for what should and should not be included. It's a mess and it will always be a mess. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • reasons the nomination itself fails - by Sederecarinae

    In WP:DEL-REASON, Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.

    WP:BEFORE (in WP:AFD) links to WP:DEL-REASON via the link anchor "valid grounds for deletion" ie, AFD describes deletion-reason (the list of 14 reasons) as being the "valid grounds"

    Sederecarinae (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • the nomination fails also on the grounds,

    Wikipedia:GDBN :

    Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case (links to criteria for speedy deletion), consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

    Investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.

    First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

    The nominating editor didn't investigate the possibility of rewriting the article, or look for sources. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

    Sederecarinae (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    1. it can't be a "bucket list" https://bucketlist.org/ because such a list is a list of things to do before one dies, not a list of causes of death. The article doesn't describe "List" of anything in the title; the article isn't intended to be a list at this time since I haven't determined the amount of possible source material available, there might be scope for discussion of the different causes, in addition to a listing of datum for years showing number of deaths.

      reasons why the reasons given by Tagashimon are unnacceptable, (including also reasons why the nomination is without sufficient reason) - by Sederecarinae

    2. "incoherent / no coherence" - is obviously not true, as the determination of subject is causes of death and all the contents fulfills the title
    3. "the date ranges chosen, in geographical locales" - you should simply wait for the article to develop, the criticism is premature, since the article hasn't existed for very much time, and I haven't been able to include full ranges due insufficient time to search for contents to include
    4. "no very good logic nor criteria for what should and should not be included" the criteria is human-cause as explained in the lead - you might think this isn't any criteria at all (as the article was redirected to the article about causes of death previously) the article redirected to at that time, contains information on the biological cause of death Cardiovascular diseases, Infectious diseases et cetera that are by medical definition (i.e. are within the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) critieria, and the range is rather large, contains 79 or 80 causes of death, although some of the criteria : war, poisoning, fire, road traffic accidents are included, they make-up only a small number of the approximately 79-80 causes, obviously the fact that the data is from 2002 only is something to do with the fact of the range being too great for the article to contain all the datum.Plus the article there shows " data from 2002 and is out of date", this article contains more updated information, and as I mentioned in the previous sentence, is of a more limited criteria (excluding diseases, and natural disasters, i.e. human-made) which gives this article more space to include detail for data for years
    5. "It's a mess and it will always be a mess." looks like political rhetoric, I think you just feel negatively in reaction to the subject matter and want the article to simply go away, if you were an authority on the subject, you would have asserted the truth of your statement "will always be a mess" at the initial challenge against the article, the whole concern with messiness is just a reiteration of the previous criticisms, which is the criticisms are based simply on the organisation of the article, but you fail to include any mention of the invalidity of the subject, if you doubt my abilities as an editor, why not collaborate, as it is a group effort to create the encyclopedia, as you are aware? Your addition of suggested deletion is less important than an effort to contribute to the article and create an encyclopedia, as is the purpose of wikipedia.
  • Sederecarinae (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

opinions of deletion by interested editors, and opinions against, made by Sederecarinae

  • Delete per nom. I suppose someone could create Unnatural causes of death (as an adjunct to Category:Causes of death), but this article is DOA, an agglomeration of stats for random years, ranging from war to one "meat-blender accident". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • DOA you state the reason is DOA because of agglomeration of stats for random years, ranging from war to one "meat-blender accident" which is a rather weak support for the implication DOA (dead on arrival) indicates the article has no value. The only actual reason in criticisms you've made (that the article shouldn't be given any life at all), is random. (DOA doesn't strictly state anything about the article other than, you don't like the article, it has no life ... but why the article is dead?, DOA simply expresses your preference, but who are you that your opinion is any more valid than thousands or millions of other people who would find the article something they would prefer to look at, that the article should be deleted at this early stage of development)

      random years the years aren't random, as I've indicated in 3)

      the other accidental deaths (i.e. "meat-blender accident") are included to indicate the existence of a range of low statistical occurrence types of death, with the intention of finding occurences for a more geographically larger area, and a more complete statistic for the types, in the future of the article for each type of death.

      The reason why I didn't title the article unnatural causes of death (or something similar) is because the identification of non-natural with humanity implies humans are non-natural - i.e the cause of death was road traffic accident, but a human was driving, nuclear device, but a human released the bomb from an aircraft. Unnatural death is true of Aircraft disasters as the cause of the passengers deaths is mechanical fault, or electric fault, or some other fault, I don't know exactly; a failure of the integrity of the craft as a result of human error, or material error, resulting in a flaw in the aircrafts integrity, plus the interaction of the flaw with the physical environment, during flight, causing the failure of the craft to remain airborne. Sederecarinae (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a useful list and too much synthesis. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The content is a strange sampling of bits and pieces, and does not seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose. There is no obvious place to merge any of this content, and the title is not a useful redirect because of the grammatical error. Unclear rationale for deprod. Reyk YO! 15:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • looking at Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process:

      "When to use the deletion process? Articles that the community feels cannot improve, or are unlikely to improve, are often deleted.

      "When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing. Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept. Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.

      deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.

      & WP:DEL-REASON: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)

      Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.

      I can't see how editors preferring deletion have adhered to the criteria for deletion as described in the the two page Sederecarinae (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:AFD If you want to nominate an article, the Wikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion, and may help you understand when an article should be nominated for deletion. The guide to deletion explains the deletion process. If an article meets the criteria for deletion and you understand the process, consult the instructions below. If you are unsure whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, try this talk page or Wikipedia's help desk. Sederecarinae (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others; does not have clear and reasonable selection criteria MB 17:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • is an inadmissible, unacceptable reason because selection criteria is a sub-heading of "Appropriate topics for lists" of the article Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, not a reason for deletion. The reason given by User:MB is an observation the article nominated doesn't fulfil the criteria for a List, that is all. This is already described in my first response at 1), I didn't title the article List anything, that is a failing of the nominating editor to have thought the article is a list in any case, because it isn't titled a list and the contents aren't intended to be a list. Even if the article were intended to be a list but is not fulfilling the criteria, is not a legitimate reason for deletion, is infact more or less an irrelevant fact. Sederecarinae (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop telling everybody that they're wrong because their argument is not enumerated in WP:DEL-REASON. That list is not comprehensive (Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following). WP:LSC is a guideline, which means you're expected to follow it aside from the occasional exception, and if that's not possible to do for a page then it's a perfectly valid rationale for deletion. The fact the page's title doesn't contain "List" doesn't mean it's not a list. Hut 8.5 18:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • that is not correct because as I've described WP:BEFORE (in WP:AFD) links to WP:DEL-REASON via the link anchor "valid grounds for deletion" ie, AFD describes deletion-reason (the list of 14 reasons) as being the "valid grounds" Sederecarinae (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • secondarily, as I've already indicated, the nomination itself is invalid, because the nominating editor did not follow the description policy for actions to take before nomination, as I've indicated in the response I made to your first inclusion on this page and elsewhere. Sederecarinae (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC) c.f. Wikipedia:GDBN Sederecarinae (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • the problems of the page, identified by yourself and others could be in a large part addressed by the cleanup or disputed templates, in addition, the fact that you have identified are not limited to, their are 14 criteria listed wouldn't you think that that fact of there being 14 listed indicates the 14 idenbtified were important enough to show on the the page, and reasons other than the 14 aren't as important a reason for deletion as one or more of the 14, the first is criteria for speedy deletion which does indicate that the 1st reason is the most important reason for deletion in the 14, and Deletion is last resort. In considering reasons other than those shown in the list of 14 reasons:

          The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

          Wikipedia:4DDd the purpose of XfD is to decide whether an article fails a policy. Even if 40 people vote to delete, if they don't have a reason to do so, the article will be kept. Sederecarinae (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

          • WP:DEL is a policy, it has official status and people are expected to follow it. The other page you've linked to does not have official status and is attempting to briefly summarise part of the deletion policy. The fact it doesn't mention all the bits of that section does not mean anything. Hut 8.5 18:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I've mentioned, the first listed reason is criteria for speedy deletion, which must include the most obvious and strongest reasoned arguments for the deletion of an article (being the fastest response to the need for deletion), the second, copyright violations is also comparatively a strong reason, being an actual legal obligation, and the list therefore must presumably proceed by number accordingly, going down the numbers indicates lesser important reasons. This article doesn't fulfil any of the 14 reasons shown, what is the actual reason? The only reason I could find is in the 14th Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information but I've provided an explanation for the statistics. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a mess of a list, doesn't have a coherent topic and would not be useful if it was in an even vaguely complete state. The scope includes cases where people deliberately killed people but also where people were killed by people by accident, cases where people died as a result of engaging in risky behaviours and apparently even freak accidents arising from unremarkable behaviours. This isn't a coherent scope. If expanded it would be even messier, for example one section gives a breakdown of people killed by police forces in the US and US in the last few years, if expanded to cover every country in the world over the last 119 years it would take up an absurd amount of space. We have a number of other lists which present this information, such as List of causes of death by rate, Preventable causes of death, List of countries by suicide rate, List of countries by intentional homicide rate and List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, I suggest the creator contribute to those or start something with a clearly defined scope like that. Hut 8.5 17:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is not intended to be a list, do you see list in the title? The list you've shown links to don't " present this information ", you haven't even looked at the other lists, if you had and found this article is a repition of content in the Lists you could have given the reason as a repetition of content in other articles, which is a reason for deletion, but isn't true of this article. If you look at Wikipedia:Deletion_and_deletionism#Step_One:_Verify_if_the_article_in_question_can_be_improved_rather_than_be_deleted, is messier, messiness, it is amess or anything of the description to do with messiness isn't anything at all to do with a reason for deletion, or in any of the links I've provided. Messiness is not a reason, in Deletion_and_deletionism#Step_One:_Verify_if_the_article_in_question_can_be_improved_rather_than_be_deleted shows shows See if you can find any sources easily with a 2-minute Google search. See how many Google hits the article has. If you can't easily find any sources and there are very few Google hits relating to the article, go on to step two. If you CAN find sources, though, go ahead and add references to the article Not one of you is following the description in procedure for deletion nomination, and there isn't any indication anyone has made any effort to add references to the article. The article doesn't fulfil any of the 14 criteria for deletion I've described for deletion already, what then are the actual reasons for deletion? Sederecarinae (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get that you're new, but you don't seem to have understood the pages you're quoting here, but you have nevertheless decided that everybody else is very very wrong. For a start Wikipedia:Deletion and deletionism is an essay and therefore ultimately just someone's opinion. It doesn't have any official standing. Secondly the concerns which are being raised here can't be addressed through editing. Take the overlap argument. The list attempts to break down the casualties of the Second World War. This is done in much greater detail at World War II casualties. What is the justification for doing it separately here, exactly? I don't see anything. In fact given the scope of the list it ought to be expanded to include breakdowns of the casualties of the other wars in the 20th and 21st centuries, and There's rather a lot of those, unfortunately. And that's just the wars, never mind the sections on murder, police deaths, etc. The result would not be useful to our readers. This problem cannot be addressed through editing because it is fundamental to any page with this title and scope.
        The bit you've quoted about sources is not relevant here. The most common reason given for deletion here, by a large margin, is that the topic doesn't have adequate sourcing. People nominating pages for deletion for that reason are advised to check for the existence of suitable sources, yes. But this page hasn't been nominated for deletion for that reason. The fact that sources exist on some topic does not mean we can have an article on it. It only means we can have an article on it if it isn't disallowed for some other reason. Hut 8.5 18:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're stating the reason for deletion would be WP:NOT#IINFO ? Sederecarinae (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I have already said, there is no comprehensive list of reasons why pages can be deleted here, and any logically valid argument would do. However if you insist on a policy link then it does come under WP:NOT#IINFO as it is an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Hut 8.5 19:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reasons for deletion are given in policy WP:DEL, the only of the list the article currently seems to breach is in the 14th, but as I've stated above, I've provided an explanation in the article. The list is discriminated by "human-made" as the description of the content inclusion, not by disease or natural disaster c.f. 4). Sederecarinae (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • the primary subject of the article is: cause of death, the secondary subject is: human made (artificial) or by human behaviour, the article seeks to describe this subject as a more specific subject to the generally defined subject Causes in the primary. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • The fact you can point to inclusion criteria does not make it not indiscriminate, because those criteria are extremely broad. As written the list includes everything from nuclear warfare to accidental electrocution by headphones as individual items. Presumably you could expand it to include accidental decapitation by helicopter and being crushed by a hay bale, along with a million others. Regarding your claim that WP:DEL-REASON is a comprehensive list, I suggest you have a look at WP:IDHT, as your reading is the exact opposite of what the policy clearly says. Hut 8.5 19:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Is this an article? WP:DISRUPTSIGNS is with regards to editing in articles not in discussions for deletion. Is WP:IDHT a policy? You attempt to close my opinions because they don't agree with yours and a number of others. I don't agree with you and a number of other editors so my insistence on a particular opinion is thought disruptive is that it? I'm stating the list indicates, at the 1st and 2nd positions in the list the 1st most important reason and the second most important, wouldn't you agree? why the editor who created the policy listed the reasons for deletion in numerical order, instead of in a list without numbers? I haven't stated I think the list is comprehensive, where do you see the word comprehensive in my explanation prior to your comment, there isn't any mention of the word. As to your claim I'm being disruptive, perhaps you'd like to read > Wikipedia:4DDd the purpose of XfD is to decide whether an article fails a policy. Even if 40 people vote to delete, if they don't have a reason to do so, the article will be kept as your reading is simply in error compared to policy. As to the identification of two types of death "decapitation by helicopter, crushed by a hay bale" Why not include the information you have identified, is there a reason not to? you don't actually in reality know the amount of information possible to include in the article, you're just presuming to know without any proof of the information potentially being too much to include within the article, I could (yourself or any other editor) summarise the information, move the article title accordingly, create a more specific article, there are millions or articles in wikipedia. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • {{ping|Hut 8.5}}perhaps you'd like to look at the definition of the word riled, because I'm sure this word applies to yourself, perhaps I'm wrong, and my deepest and sincere regret for having ever bothered you with my futile efforts to reason against the current consus seeing this is the exact moment of realization of consensus as you have so rightly identified for all our (and for the species benefit, of course) I am humbly corrected. the purpose of XfD is to decide whether an article fails a policy. Even if 40 people vote to delete, if they don't have a reason to do so, the article will be kept Sederecarinae (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You just told everybody who commented here that their reason is invalid because it isn't listed in WP:DEL-REASON, even though that's exactly the opposite of what WP:DEL-REASON says, and you carried on after this was pointed out to you. That's disruptive. You can't claim that the people arguing this page should be deleted don't have a reason either, they clearly do. You might not agree with it or like it but it is there. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion further. Hut 8.5 20:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can understand the concept, but the article would need to be started over completely to have clear methodology for what to include. This is just an assortment of whatever unrelated and incomparable statistics about deaths you could find, without any coherent selection criteria. The list of "other accidental deaths" that have killed one single person could get pretty out of hand. It's very random organization, varying in sections by what years and countries are included and in what formats, which basic clean-up wouldn't fix. Preventable causes of death could be expanded to include some of this, but this is not the way to do it. Reywas92Talk 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is not possible because WP:TNT states the reasons for are usually Copyright violations and extensive cases of advocacy and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. As I've stated before the list isn't incoherent:

      Human and artificial cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries

      • Tobacco - is a natural substance, but the inclusion is because it is manufactured by humans and added to places of commerce for purchase, it is in a form which is made - cigars, cigarettes and packaged tobacco; compared to Causes of death - lung cancer, this is often caused by tobacco, but in this article the cause tobacco is given, because the article isn't about medically determined causes of death, as for example in autopsy, the coroner found the individuals death was caused by - if the coroner found lung cancer, they wouldn't state tobacco, they would state lung-cancer. In addition tobacco is included in human cause by human behaviour, as decribed in the introduction
      • Alcohol - is produced and added to flavoured beverages in manufacturing, by human behaviour, and the drinking of alcohol is a human behavior, lie smoking of tobacco.
      • Road traffic accidents - the car was invented by humans, assembled, driven at the time of death by a human
      • Illegal drugs - this is meant narcotics, classified substances particularly recreational and psychoactif drugs - which are consumed particularly for there pleasurable effects, that humans choose to take.
      • War is obvious - since it involves the intentional killing of others, or the amoral cause of death (by bombs)
    • et cetera

      the selection criteria belong to subjects of law, or social science. Sederecarinae (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the persuasive arguments above. Without a central tenet and with too much synthesis this will never be a valid article. Sanction the creator for bludgeoning this discussion and rendering the AFD unreadable StarM 02:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is not a actual reason > tenet : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true, https://www.etymonline.com/word/tenet, doesn't show anything that might be applied to the article, unless I'm to think you would prefer for me and others to take the 15th century sense of the word - tenet : "principle, opinion, or dogma maintained as true by a person, sect, school, etc.," properly "a thing held (to be true)," early 15c., from Latin tenet "he holds," third person singular present indicative of tenere "to hold, grasp, keep, have possession, maintain," - what isn't true about the description in the title and contents under the title. If you intend to indicate the 15th century sense, to hold, to maintain - a theme > the theme is Death > causes of death > death caused by human action or behaviour or artificial causes. I've already given the theme in this discussion elsewhere, it is:

      "the primary subject of the article is: cause of death, the secondary subject is: human made (artificial) or by human behaviour, the article seeks to describe this subject as a more specific subject to the generally defined subject Causes in the primary. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)"

    • indicate where the article content fails to hold to this theme, there isn't anywhere in the article it doesn't adhere to the theme, so your criticism is invalid. As for "too much synthesis", if you look at List of causes of death by rate, you see the causes I've included in this article in the article List of causes of death by rate. In any other academic article, the headings are determined by sources and the whim of contributory editors to add material to articles they themselves think is relevant, supported by sources. There isn't any synthesis beyond the inclusion of headings in addition to those causes found in the List of causes of death by rate article, this fact is no different to any other article, which is to add facts and organise them to headings, the sources provide the information and the content made from the information becomes organised as additions are made, this is a form of synthesis, yes, what is the problem with synthesis? What actually is the problem with synthesis? Sederecarinae (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{ping|Hut 8.5|Star Mississippi|Reyk|Tagishsimon|CAPTAIN RAJU}} Looking at the number of articles in the first page only of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Start-Class Death articles, there is a large number of articles on the subject of death, how the criticisms and eliminating this article are more important than allowing the article time to develop? Sederecarinae (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Synthesis" is referring to WP:SYNTHESIS, in other words you haven't taken the particular categories or statistics from any reliable source but instead you've picked some based on your own opinion. List of causes of death by rate uses a categorisation system from the WHO, which is much closer to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It certainly isn't true that "the causes I've included in this article in the article List of causes of death by rate", because that page doesn't include decapitation by helicopter, cannibalism, people shot by police who possessed a gun or knife, meat blender accidents, nuclear warfare or most of the other categories you picked. Yes, there are plenty of articles on death, and death is a perfectly good topic to write about on Wikipedia, but it doesn't follow that every possible article about death is fine. Hut 8.5 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could have made this discussion readable again yourself, as I just did. Should you be sanctioned, too? Uncle G (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge - The content on this page generally overlaps other articles. We don't need an overview article with this scope (restricted only to deaths with artificial causes in recent centuries); I think the existing overview articles have more straightforward scopes. No single article can cover all these topics in as fine a detail as individual incidents, so I don't see a place for this article in the encyclopedia. However, some of the other articles that should have some of the content here don't. I added links to some from appropriate places like List of causes of death by rate, and these (and linked lists and subarticles that have more detail) would be better targets for improvement:
  • Delete: if it's a list (and yes, I know the creator is saying it isn't) then it's not one with a clearly-defined or useful scope; listing all causes of deaths or all statistics of deaths worldwide in the 1900s and 2000s would require 10,000 different pages, not one list. If it's an article then it's not clear under what grounds it's notable as certainly none of the sources in the article discuss the topic "Human and artificial cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries", only subtopics of this. (Consider for example a hypothetical article Relationship between grapes and deontology which has lots of sources on grapes and lots of sources on deontology; nevertheless it doesn't meet notability criteria as none of the sources discuss both in combination. This is analogous as none of the article's sources discuss the lengthy title "Human and artificial cause ... centuries".) And as the final nail in the coffin, regardless of what the page is supposed to be, it doesn't currently provide any utility to readers due to its mishmash of content and by IAR we are therefore free to TNT it. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 23. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure were to start. Primary sources need to be trimmed. Article needs to be rewritten as a summary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Load of synth. oknazevad (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give me an example of where I've taken a number of sources and used those sources to imply something not included in the sources. The is no SYNTH in the article. Give an example of where the SYNTH is. I see this:
      • "too much synthesis" Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2019,
        • "too much synthesis" StarM 02:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC),
      • referring to WP:SYNTHESIS, in other words you haven't taken the particular categories or statistics from any reliable source but instead you've picked some based on your own opinion. Hut 8.5 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
      • (Consider for example a hypothetical article Relationship between grapes and deontology which has lots of sources on grapes and lots of sources on deontology; nevertheless it doesn't meet notability criteria as none of the sources discuss both in combination. This is analogous as none of the article's sources discuss the lengthy title "Human and artificial cause ... centuries".) Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
      • "Load of synth" oknazevad (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2019
    • but infact there is not one example of SYNTH in the article - the opinions are like the echo of a sound in a deep-cave - they are just empty, the first mention of SYNTH seems to indicate something which I presumed must be an opinion with depth, but if I can't find how the criticism applies to the article then all I have is a criticism that is intended to enlighten me to my errors, but is infact made from a place with no light to see the actual details of the problem. SYNTH states in the first sentence > Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That is intended to communicate for example, in philosophical reasoning "Syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument", in the syllogism article:

      All men are mortal. (would be information added to Non-natural_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries from one source)

      Socrates is a man. (would be information added to Non-natural_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries from one source)

      Therefore, Socrates is mortal.(would be the conclusion and the use of SYNTH that editors are attempting to apply to the article Non-natural_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries)

    • It is obvious that the article does not include SYNTH because there are no arguments in the article. The article is simply, to demonstrate the existence of, and to give examples of, the elements of the article title identified as "non-natural death", there are no conclusions in the article, i am not providing any arguments, it is simply about the examples of non-natural causes. SYNTH is an element of WP:OR, not an independent stand-alone criticism, there is no original research in the article, if any editor is able to see an example of when I've added original research give the example, I'm not waiting around to see the example, because there are no examples of WP:OR, so there cannot be any examples of SYNTH. This example of failure of criticism in an attempt at a line of criticism is true of many of the criticisms, typified by "per nom and all the above. User:Lugnuts 06:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)" The argument provided by the editor is without reason, no reason is given, if a reason is given then it is simply the application of the word "reason" as some access-code to the deletion debate, without any observation of the actual meaning of reason in policy, and the underlying reason for the existence of policy. How any of these criticisms are essential enough that the article must be deleted. I have given the evidence of how the article title is valid, and in any case is already in existence at Unnatural death, as Scott A. Rushing, FSA, MAAA Head of Global Research, Jason McKinley, FSA Assistant Actuary : "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists several principal causes of non-natural deaths in the United States: accidental poisoning, motor vehicle accidents, unintentional falls, suicide by firearms or other means, homicide by firearms or other means, accidental drowning, complications from medical or surgical treatments, and accidental exposure to smoke and fire.". This source demonstrates via the CDC the legitimacy of the concept "Non-natural death" as an independently existing fact. The misapprehension of the title to "Non-natural death" being a fact of medical terminology as in "Preventable causes of death The World Health Organization has traditionally classified death according to the primary type of disease or injury. However, causes of death may also be classified in terms of preventable risk factors" for example, caused editors to therefore think it possible to criticize the article as necessarily merged to other articles, or because it doesn't fulfill either of these classifications should be deleted, is to some extent my failure to identify the general subject of the article (which is actuarial science, insurance - risk, law), not an actual reason for deletion. As to the scope of twenty and twenty-first centuries c.f. Causes of death over 100 years Explore and learn more about how the causes of death have changed over the last century published 18 September 2017 by the Office for National Statistics (Britain). Sederecarinae (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All your criticisms, none of you make an effort to improve the article, by attempting to identify sources per WP:DNA (Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!) "Articles may survive the deletion process for several reasons The article improves to encyclopedic standards while the discussion is underway" (which I see is not a page on policy, but is obvious in any case), your behaviours as critical demonstrate only your interest in deletion, not constructive contribution, why not try and help save the article. "Unnatural death" exists, no-one has nominated that article for deletion, try and think how that is possible since https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unnatural_death&oldid=23942338, created 24 septembre 2005 à 21:40 with no sources. Sederecarinae (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • c.f. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Non-natural_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries Sederecarinae (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since one of the criticisms is SYNTH, c.f.: 
    {{multiple issues|{{original research|date=April 2019}}}}

    as is the case in the Hallucinogen article. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Non-natural deaths have been occurring throughout entire human history. There's nothing special about twentieth and twenty-first centuries and there's no point in highlighting these particular centuries. The focus of interest of most reliable sources is the non-natural death itself (for which there's already an article), not its occurrence in a given century. Brandmeistertalk 19:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominators rationale-Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 24. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{ping|Brandmeister}} changed the title to Non-natural death in contemporary history, and will add a heading "History" Sederecarinae (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{ping|Reyk|Tagishsimon|Clarityfiend|Dheerajmpai23|MB|Hut 8.5| StarM| Doc James|Lugnuts|Ozzie10aaaa }} please see Mortality statistics: every cause of death in England and Wales, visualised How do we die? Are you more likely to get knocked down by a car, bitten by a dog or fall down the stairs? Find out with the latest mortality statistics vis-à-vis "a strange sampling of bits and pieces" (Reyk), "a weird and incoherent mix of things" (Tagishsimon ), "an agglomeration of stats for random years, ranging from war to one "meat-blender accident" (Clarityfiend),"Not a useful list" (Dheerajmpai23), "does not have clear and reasonable selection criteria" (MB), "a mess of a list, doesn't have a coherent topic and would not be useful if it was in an even vaguely complete state" (Hut 8.5), "assortment of whatever unrelated and incomparable statistics about deaths you could find, without any coherent selection criteria" (Reywas92), " Without a central tenet" ( StarM), "per nom and all the above" (Lugnuts), " per nominators rationale" (Ozzie10aaaa) Sederecarinae (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the collection of criticism identified at 22:33 hrs 24th, https://www.rgare.com/docs/default-source/newsletters-articles/non-natural-deaths.pdf?sfvrsn=f04ea088_0, and https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/unnatural-death indicate criteria for inclusion of types of deaths. In https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010, accidents and external causes is non-natural deaths (the second table down), in https://crvsgateway.info/External-causes-of-death~340 (University of Melbourne "External causes of death - deaths due to external or unnatural causes" Sederecarinae (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection in princple to a list which attempts to break down deaths, even unnatural deaths, into sub-categories. But it should have to be something like List of causes of death by rate which does so in a vaguely systematic fashion, rather than just picking whatever death-related statistics you feel like. I suggest you stop with the WP:WALLOFTEXT and mass pinging, they aren't helping your case. Hut 8.5 06:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TLDR. Probably best you stop badgering people who don't agree with keeping this article. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 05:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 24. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: my !vote remains the same despite the bludgeon and name changing. This is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Please stop pinging me. StarM 00:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an excessive listing of unexplained statistics failing the third point at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The creator's constant argument and walls of text are not helpful in advancing their case. – Teratix ₵ 01:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I'm not changing my !vote. Stop pinging me. Reyk YO! 05:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix and Hut 8.5: "the creator's constant argument and walls of text are not helpful in advancing their case." "I suggest you stop with the WP:WALLOFTEXT and mass pinging, they aren't helping your case" so the reason why I'm wrong in my choices, is because I'm actually disagreeing with the other editors and have shown reasons for my disagreement in writing, is that the actual reason? Where in policy does it show my attempt at a discussion by taking any position at all in the discussion other than the majority vote, is why I'm wrong? c.f. comparison on the version at the time of nomination to the current version. The other editors arguments to deletion are rigidly adherent to their first decision of deletion, but the version are showing difference that I've made trying to incorporate their criticisms. The article is now significantly different, but I shouldn't ping the editors to attempt to gain their attention to observe the differences. I am a ignoramus mouse in a hole, and will not bother any of you again > . < that is my hole and if you look closely you will see my small mouse like face within that hole looking out. Thanks Sederecarinae (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
all your opinions, they are sqweak Sederecarinae (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am a mouse infestation (help!) on this discussion page > . < this hole is where I live Sederecarinae (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I said, and neither did anyone else. The problem isn't your opinion but the way you take part in the discussion. Instead of putting your opinion across reasonably concisely you opted to try to start an argument with everybody who disagreed with you, posting massive amounts of text (which discourages people from trying to read it), and when people didn't respond or stopped responding you started pinging them to insist they come back and carry on discussing it with you. This just irritates people and doesn't help your case. I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON as it pretty accurately describes how you've gone about taking part here. Hut 8.5 17:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non-natural_death&oldid=1220814801"