Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant death

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 delete. Sr13 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instant death

Instant death (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article has no citations, and doesn't seem to be on an encyclopedic subject. It has been on the cleanup list for over 2 years - should it even be kept around anymore? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I cleaned it up a bit and it's looking a bit better than it did. The list it's on is static, so it won't update even if the tag is removed from the article. Nardman1 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete still needs work. Nardman1 09:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete edited article. Unattributed. POV that instant death is necessarily accidental or homicidal and therefore messy (in actuality, it often isn't). Seems to be more appropriate (in terms of attribution, especially) for rotten.com, not Wikipedia. I'm not seeing any sources on searches, either, that deal with "instant death" as a journalistic term. --Charlene 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If this is it looking cleaned up, it must have been scary before. You may need to refresh your browser cache to clear the list it is on Nardman1. Slavlin 02:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If the article is kept, this might be a good source to start with. Currently, the article has no sourcing at all. *** Crotalus *** 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per OR. the_undertow talk 02:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't a guide of minor journalistic terms. Akradecki 04:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:OR-ish, fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- Original Research Thunderwing 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, weakly, and without prejudice to recreation, or stubify. Most of what's there seems somewhat speculative, I agree, although sources can likely be found. There are other avenues of expansion for this. I remember an extended discussion in Philippe Aries' L'homme devant la mort about the relative desirability of sudden death. (In short, medieval Europeans feared sudden death because it potentially deprived them of the chance to be shriven by a priest; moderns thought it somewhat desirable because protracted illness is avoided.) - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point - the article right now is on the medical aspect of sudden death, when it could be about the cultural perspectives on the topic. I'd be in favour of keeping a sourced article on the latter - although this isn't what we have right now. I'll still suggest it's better to delete this one, and allow someone to create a good article in its stead sometime in the future. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, unless sources can be found. Useight 14:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
comment - why is sourcing sufficient, btw? I.e., is this topic notable, do you think? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC
Sources are usually sufficient to establish that somebody, or rather, enough somebodies, care about the subject, which means it is not only verifiable, but notable. Not always, but I can see in this case where it might be convincing if there were good sources. FrozenPurpleCube 13:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.