Deletion of List of unusual deaths (7th nomination)

Comment: Delete is the only option here, because this fails  in spades.  There's no set-in-stone criteria as to what's an unusual death and what isn't, and I can guarantee you that Warden's books disagree with each other as to that criteria.  If you need proof of how subjective this list is, you should note that the Wikipedia community has spent the time since the 5th AfD fighting over what belongs and what doesn't.  And there's good reason why there's never going to be any agreement: because, on the one hand, anything that's not one of the top 4-5 worldwide causes of death can be considered "unusual"; but on the other, anything which has claimed more than one life can be considered "usual".  Many of the top-notch lists on Wikipedia have clearly defined criteria (people who were X and did Y, usually; or places designated A because of association with B); this list could be 1 MB and still not be exhaustive, another no-no per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: I don't really agree with , but it passes that guideline as there are multiple books on the subject of unusual deaths. A tighter criteria for inclusion, though? Definitely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: The repeated nomination of this article violates , "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."  Also '''keep''' in general, this topic is notable because it has been covered in reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELAFD)

Comment: Along with all the other references, even the New Scientist has mentioned unusual deaths in its book of bizarre tales http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1996-07.html . This article satisfies  as show by attempts to get the Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal:_Lists_must_be_based_on_objective_criteria|policy changed by one commentator. AfDing articles again and again and again based up  is disruptive, and very bad for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is based upon what reliable sources say, and there are a plethora about unusual deaths
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: inherently subjective, fails . While a fascinating list, this is ultimately unworkable, as we don't have reliable sources that make sure determinations based on some sort of reasonable criteria. In addition, many of the entries are about entities for which we don't even have articles, making it . The current rough consensus to simply use the consensus of editors here to determine if a death is usual or not smacks of WP:OR and selection bias of the particular set of editors who happen to haunt this page. It's time for this list to go, or at least to have another discussion about deleting it. I'd be fine with "userfying" to Wikiproject death and let them keep it out of article space
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: per . Clearly. Indiscrimate list based on fully subjective and frankly tabloid criterias. Not an encyclopedic topic. I believe this kind of tabloid, non-encyclopedic lists and sometimes articles in the long run harms the seriosity and reputation of Wikipedia. Regards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I've waited to consider this matter and the potential merits of both deletion and retention, and I feel that this article should be retained in the encyclopedia. It passes , because content within the article is |verifiable from |reliable sources. The topic itself is also |notable, particularly since ''entire books'' are devoted to the topic of covering various unusual deaths
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: inherently subjective, no actually objective criteria have been able to be agreed upon in more than a year of discussion. fails Wikipedia:LIST#Listed_items  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: I'm adding another rationale to my '''delete''' above:  - I came across the following in a review of "Strange Deaths" book: "As a family member of Frank Nelson, I am upset to see a story that is so tragic to my family, be smeared in a tacky book created to entertain others. I can see it now: "Hey! Let's take stories that have left families grieving over loved ones they've lost and turn them into a source of entertainment for others and make money off of their pain!" To me it's disrespectful and it made me sick to see this book. Please, if you do read this, I hope you remember those who were left in pain. Grandmothers, parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, wives and children. Frank was a loving husband, with 4 beautiful daughters and a HUGE family who loved and cared for him. I don't want him to be remembered by the tragic way he passed, but rather for the great man that he was."  I'm not going to besmear Mr. Nelson further by linking to his untimely passing, but the point of the family member (who I don't have any reason to disbelieve) is a good one, and we should take it under consideration. We've listed a number of people here who aren't otherwise notable, and immortalizing them by what some tabloid-esque book considers "unusual" is offensive to their memory - especially if they weren't already famous or notable for something else, it's a rather dubious honor to be listed on this list, and I would be pretty pissed off if my relative ended up here for all to see and snicker about
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The topic clearly satisfies , being covered in numerous sources such as
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: This is an indiscriminate collection of information that just happens to be well-sourced. The sources, however, frequently do nothing to identify the deaths as unusual, only that they happened. The selection criteria is based entirely on |original research, and the scope of the article does nothing but encourage it. A less subjective title and scope would help substantially
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)