Deletion of List of deaths from accidental tree failures in Australia

Comment: This is only really useful as statistical data, but as such, it is most literally |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: and rename to  per sources listed by Andrew D. .. The Relevant ''policy'' is  and relevant ''guideline''  as deaths by tree are a notable topic, evidently monitored by governments and other institutions concerned with public safety, in some countries
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE||WP:GNG)

Comment: All that is missing are source(s) that discuss the topic as a topic. I'd really like to make sure this topic isn't covered for lack of . I'm guessing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: All non notable people (many not even named) and just a collection of local news reports. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: I actually agree that a topic on the overall concept of accidental, tree related deaths in Australia would very likely be notable enough for an article, with sources that would certainly satisfy the .  However, a completely indiscriminate list of every recorded incident related to this concept is ''not''.  I agree completely with Reywas92's argument about this.  As the only source being used in this article that is not just about one of the individual incidents is not even on Australia, but the UK, there is really nothing here that needs to be preserved for the actual valid article to be created
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)