Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal snake bites in Australia

List of fatal snake bites in Australia

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

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial to all people who died a particular death, especially to people who individually don't meet the notability requirement, and a lot of unnamed people. Also WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomcollett, Nat965, Ccccchaton000, DPdH, Weedwhacker128, and Dianeatribe: Pinging other editors that have edited the content of this list article in 2019, or who have edited this article in the past and are still active editors in Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/partial merge per nom. Snakes of Australia or Epidemiology_of_snakebites#Australasia would be a great place to provide statistics about snakebites, but I don't think such specific details of people's names in the news is appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 01:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It list how often people in that nation have died from snake bites and list the date and other information. The information wouldn't all fit anywhere else. Listing how they got bit is something of value to learn from. Dream Focus 01:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that would be a WP:SYNTH issue. Surely there are better sources to provide encyclopedic content relating to snakebite deaths rather than a list of people with accompanying news reports. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ajf773, incorrect. If a reader draws a conclusion from the information in an article or list, then that is their own conclusion. Only if the wiki editor writes a conclusion would that be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Normal Op (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable, not noteworthy, Wikipedia:Listcruft. WWGB (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ~~WP:NLIST~~. WP:PRESERVE WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, explain how this passes WP:NLIST please. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: informative information.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INTERESTING. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lightburst (with correction to LISTN). Article is sourced and meets GNG. Bookscale (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Collecting a bunch of unnotable people without articles (plus Kevin Budden, whom I am going to nominate for deletion) serves no useful purpose. Breaking it down by species of snake might be worthwhile, but that would be WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - except it's not a list of people, it's a list of events when people were bitten by snakes. The notability derives from the unusual events, not the people themselves. Bookscale (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The events themselves are just as non-notable as the victims. For more clarity see WP:NEVENT. Ajf773 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - But they are notable together as a list of unusual events, that have more than routine coverage collectively, and are sourced. Bookscale (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Clarityfiend, re: "Breaking it down by species of snake might be worthwhile"... Put all the entries in one long table, standardise how the snake names are listed (which I started doing), make the table "wikitable sortable" and the reader will be able to click on the snake column and see the entire list sorted by snake. Problem solved. Normal Op (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This list article is well-sourced, meets WP:GNG, is informative, has good criteria where the list entries are associated and the list is neither too long nor too short, and it relates well to other wiki articles without being a content fork nor duplicated content. This list (as are many lists similar to it) is not intended as a memorial to people, but as a document showing the history of snake bite deaths over time, to show which snakes have had deadly contact with humans, which areas have been most affected, and give a brief introduction on how people are bitten and how deadly these snakes are -- showing that many did not even perform first aid, though some still died after seeking immediate treatment. Anyone thinking such a list as this is a memorial should clear up their misunderstanding of the word "memorial". Memorials would be focused on either one person, or a group of people dying in the same event. Chronological lists or collections of deaths by similar manner are NOT memorials to the various and unconnected people who died that way, but are bodies of information of interest to those researching a topic by manner of death. The people's names are only of interest to search for further information or citations for a particular death. The oft-cited policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements," where "such requirements" refers to the notability of the article, not the individual elements of its content. Nom's original statement is additionally confusing when he/she claims that the list is a memorial but then complains that some of the entries have no names; that is an illogical argument. Normal Op (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think with a bit more work, it could become rather nice. It is definitely a mess right now, but has reason to stay considering the other articles similar to it have been here for years/it is well sourced and a useful topic. It has potential. Ccccchaton000 (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]