Deletion of List of fatal snake bites in Australia

Comment: per . 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTPEOPLE||WP:OR)

Comment: This list article is well-sourced, meets , is informative, has Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria|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 Wikipedia:Content forking|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  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, Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: per .  
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST||WP:PRESERVE||WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: it sounds like you haven't even read the article. The article has been substantially improved since the start of this AfD and your comments make no sense - I refer you to  that "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: The controlling notability policy here is , not . From LISTN I quote: {{tq|"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists '''is based on the group'''. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been '''discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources''', per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. '''The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable.'''"}} What I have discovered, and apparently some have yet to seek out and discover for themselves, is that snakebites have been a regularly, repeated and well-covered subject in Australian news over a significant period of time — oh, like 150 years! I have seen and read numerous articles across multiple decades on the frequency of snakebites in Australia, the frequency of snakebites in particular areas, lists of fatality victims, lists of snakebite victims that did not die, the fear of snakebite incidents, first aid treatment of snakebites, their clinical treatment, which methods worked, the snake collection efforts for venom research, venom collection methods, the advances of antivenom and treatments, etc. Apparently, snakebites are on the minds of Australians, and have been for over a century! According to several reliable sources I read, '''Australia is considered the leading expert''' on the subject of venomous snakes and the treatment of their bites. Perhaps that is ''because'' of the emphasis and coverage in news media during the last century, and efforts of Australian snakemen, herpetologists and medical researchers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:NEVENT)