918:- Explain how unusual is strictly POV. It can be used objectively, since unusual states these deaths do not normally occur. The list is maintainable, since unusual deaths, by nature of being unusual are not happening in such a large number (especially in terms of actually being notable) that it is impossible to keep up. Now to answer some concerns that anyone's death can be made unusual - that is just absurd. The circumstances you listed, drowning in a lake (we're assuming your great grandfather wasn't doing anything incredibly strange) is not unusual. Even with the modifiers you presented, it doesn't become unusual. The modifiers don't change the fact he died in a usual manner. Just because there isn't a strict set of standards doesn't make it POV, it just means any strict set of standards would fail the article. For instance, look at the listing for David Bailey. Is that not unusual. Could you, under any circumstances, claim that dying by having a rat urinating on someone not be unusual. Not hypothetically. In reality, can you claim that, and if you were, could you explain how that is usual. Many of these deaths are notable enough to be passed down through history or be reported by news, so clearly, the list has a lot of merit. --
1012:, because no clear methodology is provided for specifying what this article should contain. I find the contents of the article to be notable ( virtually by definition ) and verifiable ( links to the appropriate articles ). But unless there is a clear methodology for determining what goes into this article, it is POV. That different people's POVs may prevail at different times does not address this problem. Show me a way to make this article NPOV, and I'll change my opinion, but for now I don't think it should stay.
238:'s cause of death is getting crushed by debris (or maybe it was just asphyxiation). He shares this fate with millions. What is "unusual," I'm assuming, is that he's a pope and it happened in scientific laboratory. Ergo, he's on the list. But such conjunctions of circumstances can make anyone's death unusual: so and so's great grandfather was the only white, male, left-handed American citizen who died in the state of Texas on a Thursday afternoon by drowning in a body of water containing more than 38
1216:- I admit, I like it. It's entertaining. Furthermore, while of necessity not based on as strict criteria as other articles, the deaths listed here are generally sourced and generally unusual to the general reader. For me, that's a good enough reason to keep it. Plus, I might point out that the list has undergone extensive pruning in the past few weeks, so there are people who actively maintain it and prevent it from spinning out of control.
600:- but focus more on the uniqueness of the occurrences: a fatal beaning in a major league baseball game; falling off a horse and impaling the head on a nail; a heart attack in the middle of the field in the midst of a National Football League game; execution by having molten gold poured down the throat; a U.S. President dying as a result of medical malpractice (although it wasn't considered as such at the time)...
1293:
some subjectivity to the matter doesn't mean it is not suitable for
Knowledge (XXG). For instance, a debate on notability, you have are making a subjective opinion at the end of the day. The point is, the list isn't subjective. Unusual isn't the same as strange. We could safely say it would be unusual for my speakers to burst into flames while playing music at a low level. --
884:. The effects of the bacteria are quite different as is treatment. Likewise the effects of molten gold on the body would be different than other liquids due to differences in melting point, composition, etc. Still I think we're never going to reach common ground here so I hope you have a good weekend and again I apologize if I insulted you earlier.--
362:. Agree with nominator that "unusual" implies this is inherently POV. However, this information is encyclopedic and should be kept. "Notable" leaves less room for POV as there are wikipedia policies defining what notable means, including requiring things like third party sources, which all entries on this list should have.
1043:
limiting source is almost certainly fair use, just the information is being used --to reproduce the list unchanged is almost certainly not. There may be lists of things according to ratings: It may be necessary to stop an an arbitrary number. This also applied to the general use of list of notable Xs. For odd things,
983:
that it would be automatically fail the purposes of what it is trying to validate. It also ignores the fact that it is either the cause of death, or the circumstances leading to death that make it unusual. You can't say that many people are dying from nose bleeds. If that was the case, we'd be dropping like flies. --
372:
they died in a possibly unusual manner (the pizza deliveryman with the timebomb and so on). The majority of this list is more along the lines of "List of the manners of death of notable people", since the actual fact that Pope John XXI was crushed to death (for example) only becomes notable when it was
1292:
I don't really understand how it is original research and not just making an editorial decision. From what I gather, original research is me publishing my own findings on
Knowledge (XXG), so let's just say - percentage of people who die when they suffer a nosebleed. Edit - Also, just because there is
1228:
I've been trying to edit this list for a week or two now. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think we'll be able to iron down clear criteria for adding something to the list or not. It's too soft an idea that you can't really put a clear line on what belongs and what doesn't. If some of the people
1146:
The original AfD took place in May. This would be abuse of process if the original one had taken place a few days ago, but 7 months is a legitimate length of time to wait, particularly given (as the nominator has mentioned) that the original AfD involved a series of invalid arguments. Just because an
371:
I'm not sure that that really helps either. People are notable - and many of the people in this list are patently so - but their deaths are not necessarily. As I read it, "notable deaths" would only cover the small sub-group of people on this list who are not notable for any reason but the fact that
302:
I agree there's no way to set some objective standard where an algorithm decides what goes on this list; it will have subjectivity and concerns about POV. But the same thing is true for everything in wikipedia (does this
Pokemon deserve an article? this high school? this band?) but we seem to muddle
255:
Finally, if one might then say that only notable people should be included on the list, then this doesn't help much. Like with the pope and non-notable grandfather examples, it merely takes sufficiently bold research to include every dead, notable person by virtue of conjuncting enough circumstances
226:
So what mortality rate is to be set for a particular circumstance of death? Is it 5% of all deaths (millions to add to the list)? 1% (still millions)? .01% (we might be getting to hundreds of thousands at this point...for each circumstance)? Even if there are such accessible figures, there is no way
1266:
See the above discussion. Aside from the problem of arbitrarily choosing a cutoff point (note that 1/10,000 will include every lightning death in the history of the human species), there is the issue of what counts as a relevant circumstance to the death, which are chosen or not chosen depending on
1047:
has some--although there is no documentation in Brewer whatsoever, so it does not make a good source for content, it can serve as a list of things to include. The early eds. are public domain. Similarly with standard almanacs, and the like. A limit to works mentioned in (whatever) is anothr way to
321:
Unmaintainable; I feel the threshhold for an article like this is that it should be exhaustible and that it shouldn't be too long. This seems to fail that. Furthermore, its inherently POV and likely has OR problems as well. What is 'unusual' to one person may not seem so to another. One may try
929:
In which case, the question becomes at which point we say that a given death is "unusual". In Bailey's case, I'm no medical specialist, but we'd need to see just how common an infection of leptospirosis is (let alone one which turns fatal). The article on that condition implies that vets have been
828:
I know of only one person to die of having molten gold poured down his throat, but there have been other people who died of having other hot liquids pour down their throats. Considering as relevant the composition of the liquid pour down one's throat is an arbitrary choice made in order to reach a
565:
I was a bit confused by your response, but I tried not to attack you as a person. Criticizing an attitude of one message isn't criticizing you as a whole as you are apparently a very bright person. I tried to limit my disagreement to that. Still it did come across meaner than I like so I'll strike
334:
per nom and The Way. Amusing and/or tragic as many of these deaths are, it's unencyclopedic to link them in such a way. A large number of these deaths only become "unusual" because they happen to have befallen a prominent person or because they occurred in an unexpected manner (there's an
American
982:
Well, the specific cause of death may not be unusual, but the circumstances (i.e., the rat urinating on him being what caused his death), would be what makes it unusual. To me, the biggest problem with trying to come up with a set standard for what is a usual death and what is an unusual death is
669:
Why is a death caused by medical malpractice (to take one example) even "unusual" or "interesting"? The sad truth of the matter is that there are more deaths caused this way than I think anyone would want to contemplate. Indeed, not too far north of where I live, there's a particular doctor who's
543:
in this or any other discussion. Now, I noted that this
Chapman fellow died of a crushed skull, that it was crushed by a baseball, and that those who share this circumstance are few. Please read the rest of what I wrote. Also, I take it that you're unable to provide even an arbitrary standard for
479:
None of them are. Or all of them are, depending on how conjunction-happy you want to get. Ray
Chapman died of a crushed skull. Millions and millions have died of this. But wait, he died of a crushed skull–crushed by a baseball! We've narrowed it down to (say) hundreds, and he's, perhaps, the only
784:
to name a few? Second the
President thing was only one example. Do you know of other Major League baseball players, in any nation that has a Major League, who died of a beaning? Can you name anyone else at all killed by a baseball strike to the head? (Or from molten gold or poisoned umbrellas or
529:
Although tragic this is still less than 4 per year and I've never seen any evidence that it's more common in adults. Children's bodies are often more fragile, but even then 38 of the deaths were apparently from being hit in the chest. This was the single greatest baseball-related fatality cause.
292:
This is 84 per annum, which would make it at maximum 1 in 15,000 deaths. The rates internationally might actually be lower than that due to the US having more storms than many nations. Anyway I think situations that rare or rarer can be dealt with on a list of notable people without becoming too
1042:
In some cases, there are standard brief reference sources, and one with an appropriately concise coverage can be chosen, & an article can be limited to the ones in there--or to some selection thereof, or to at least all the ones in there plus what one can justify. To use such a list as a
1302:
depends on what you're doing for criteria for inclusion. if you use the statistical method suggested, to prevent original research, someone's going to have to find a source listing unusual death percentages. If they have to find many sources and combine them into one article, that's seems like
515:
You're either being stubborn, snarky, or literal to the point of absurdity. You really think all skull wounds are the same, none more unusual than the other? Are you making that evaluation as a doctor? Still if I buy the premise how weird is that? People who die in outer space just die of
1320:
This is getting silly, IMHO. There's no algorithm that will determine what goes in and what doesn't in some "objective" manner; the consensus of people who work on this article is the best we can do. If that doesn't seem to be good enough, then people should vote to delete. -
322:
to counter this by defining unusual as being "not many people have died this way" but surely there are countless numbers of ways in which only one or two people in all of history have died. There is no real way to have concrete criteria that avoid POV and OR issues. --
1096:
has added into the lede - that the cause of death must be mentioned in the person's wikipedia article, or be the subject of an article itself - is, I think, an excellent filter that should go a long way toward addressing legitimate concerns about arbitrariness. -
651:
It doesn't need to be "alleged." Some forms of death truly are rare and this can be statistically determined. I think doing so is more work then anyone on the list is willing to do, but it's not in itself impossible. For example we have an article called
721:
is strictly NPOV: there is only one instance of it occurring under those circumstances. Most on the current list would not fit that criterion and would have to be weeded out, but at least there is an objective criterion with a standard definition.
433:
If they are rare enough forms of murder or suicide I'd say yes. Well unless they are just slightly different variants on a common form. (Like say using a hard to find sleeping pill to commit suicide or being shot with a gun that had
1030:. This seems to me to be equally POV, but in a recent discussion the consensus was not to delete. I wonder if we can come up with a good way to address the general issue of "lists of interesting, important or unusual things"...
516:
asphyxiation, people who get eaten by bears "really" just die of blood loss, etc. But didn't strike you what these people actually died of rather than just "the only thing I want to pay attention to to make my point."--
492:
narrows it down to, as far as I know, just him. He's not on the list now, though, so what an exclusion this is! Again, there is absolutely no possible way to prevent everyone from getting on this list. It is flawed by
161:
would be a goner, too. Also, the deletion arguments for this article are backed by "I don't like it" arguments, which are pretty lame, too. And when you get down to it, what else is there to support the existence of
290:
579:
an accident that kills less than 17.9 per 200,000,000 per annum I think could be rare. This translates to kinds of accidents that kill less than 537 people per year. A similar method can be done with suicide and
1345:
Please keep: Information can be entertainment, it is the only reason I am here - I am also more informed after reading this. I understand that this is a fuzzy set, but the entry tends towards the comprehensive.
617:
standard, which would at least be a start. The reason for this is simple: there's no possible way. When people use the term, what they really mean is that they find a death and the circumstances surrounding it
1310:
is a reported term. So I suppose we could say "List of deaths deemed unusual by the media" as our opinion of what's unusual would not be taken into account. (This seems unnecessary to me, but I'll put it out
973:
Mortality rate is 25%, according to sources I found, so we could estimate 17-18 per year. That's assuming rates have stayed constant since then and they may not have. Again interpret that as you will.--
930:
known to get it, but actually digging up some statistics would be the key. Is an unusual cause of death something which only 5 people have been the victim of, or is the number more like 100 or more?
656:. The term is not POV, it is an actual medical term. I think by the same standard a "rare accident" could be one that effects less than 1 in 2000 accident victims. Perhaps this would be better as
613:
of allegedly unusual deaths, not a method to determine whether one is. Not one person voting keep and no one editing the article has been able to provide a method. No one has even given an
113:
670:
accused of causing a phenomenal number of deaths in this manner. The only "unusual" or "interesting" aspect of a
President dying that way is that (much like our crushed Pope), it was a
575:
Now as to the issue itself I don't feel I was being arbitrary. The lowest accidental death rate I find is the
Bahamas with 17.9 per 100,000 people. Using the "1 per 2000" notion in
660:, still I don't understand your insistence here. That said I apologize again for being overheated yesterday. I was confused by your response, but I was out of line if I hurt you.--
1306:
Then virtually all articles are OR as they may require "finding many sources and combining them in an article." Still possibly a different compromise could be done. In the media
209:
Mortality statistics are available and from those I think you can determine whether a death is unusual. Granted the most unusual deaths are likely caused by rare diseases like
1204:- people forget that "unusual" is a workable criterion for matters such as dying. If more subjective than others, the list is not as subjective as to validate its deletion.
794:
Then they're the only
Presidents of the United States to die from these things (though there's a reasonable chance that Grant is the only president of any nation to die of
124:(not the fact that these people died, but that their deaths ought to be considered "unusual" and therefore worthy of inclusion). As consequence of this, there is perpetual
527:
1307:
1257:
I'm glad you asked. Unusual is usually defined by frequency of occurance. It's pretty easy to set that objectively say, by using the 1/10,000 figure as a cutoff.
83:
78:
470:. Then tell me which of those is not a rare/unusual way to die. I think this list is full of invalid examples, but a valid list can be formed from it.--
87:
950:
deaths seem to be not that rare in parts of the Third World. Checking the modern world I find Hawaii seven people have died of it in the past decade.
1044:
999:
entertaining, though the documentation is variable. Why should I deprive others of what I enjoyed myself? I know some more good ones to add as well.
1125:. This article is entirely subjective. Because one person finds death by cholera (Tchaicovsky) unusual, it does not mean it should be posted here.
971:
819:
Very well. Do you know of any other notable person in any profession to die of a baseball hit to the head? (Or molten gold or poisoned umbrellas)--
335:
President listed who died of indigestion, which was probably a common enough way to die at the time, but presumably his death is "unusual" because
70:
657:
798:
cancer). If we're limiting by profession (e.g., professional baseball player), then this should be admissible. The slippery slope follows thus.
970:. Death rates were not listed and actual figures of cases might be four times that number. If true this means 70 cases per year in that period.
1325:
1315:
1297:
1287:
1261:
1246:
1233:
1229:
voting keep can go to the lists' talk page and help iron out criteria, I'd say keep. But with it's current status, I'll have to say delete.
1220:
1208:
1196:
1184:
1155:
1141:
1129:
1117:
1101:
1080:
1068:
1052:
1034:
1016:
1003:
987:
977:
957:
938:
922:
888:
867:
823:
814:
789:
763:
726:
682:
664:
646:
604:
584:
570:
560:
534:
520:
509:
474:
426:
409:
384:
366:
351:
326:
307:
297:
272:
217:
199:
170:
148:
52:
715:
person in recorded history to having been adjudged in a coroner's inquest has having laughed himself to death. The actual definition of
953:
That'd be about 1 in 10,000 deaths in Hawaii I think. I couldn't find the rate for the US as a whole. Make of all this what you will.--
17:
1064:- absolutely cannot believe that this is being listed for deletion. It's factual, verifiable information. Please stop AFD abuse.
773:
293:
large. Objecting to individual cases on the list doesn't say much about the list itself or whether a death can be rare/unusual.--
829:
desired conclusion, much like first considering profession to be relevant and then considering it to be irrelevant. Continue to
1076:. I agree that this article may be hard to maintain and prone to squabbling, but that does not mean it should be deleted.
1048:
do it. The choice of the place to take the listing from can be debated, on the article talk page, and thankfully not here.
1126:
1137:. Abuse of VfD; it survived one, and because an individual was unhappy with those results, we now have to endure another?
1281:
1175:
861:
808:
781:
757:
640:
554:
503:
266:
193:
142:
1358:
768:
First are you certain there is only one President in the entire history of the world to die from cancer? Did you check
36:
129:
74:
480:
notable person to die of a crushed skull, crushed by a baseball (though I'm going to go ahead and doubt this, too).
402:
1147:
article survives AfD at one point doesn't mean that, some time later, it can't be renominated and even deleted.
623:
1357:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1179:
1027:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
166:
article except "I like it" - although stated as "it's important" to imply that this judgment is objective. -
358:
183:
unverifiable. This is a direct appeal to Knowledge (XXG) policy (unlike yet another "I like it" argument).
830:
544:
inclusion, given that your current method is to proffer an example and then insult those who question it.
66:
58:
962:
Addendum, I see he was Irish. In the Republic of Ireland 175 confirmed cases occurred in the period from
1138:
459:
847:
769:
117:
777:
343:
tend to die from or whatever), which opens up more cans of worms than can be gainfully dealt with.
1241:, what can you define as 'unusual'? It's unencyclopedic, and would be difficult to maintain. --///
423:
526:
Baseball related deaths are generally children. From 1973 to 1995 88 such deaths were reported.
438:
stickers on it) And there are things on here that truly are rare "freak" forms of death. Check
1322:
1258:
1098:
1077:
1065:
467:
443:
422:
criterion. Would innovative suicides and murders qualify ? Where is the cut-off point ? --
304:
167:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
838:
711:
known instance of a person being executed by having molten gold poured down his throat, only
1193:
1171:
1152:
935:
736:
679:
481:
394:. It's verifiable, interesting information. Isn't judging 'notability' also a POV judgment?
381:
348:
175:
Fortunately, I never said anything about the difficulty of its maintenance. Please consider
1268:
842:
540:
1312:
1217:
974:
954:
885:
820:
786:
744:
661:
581:
567:
531:
517:
471:
294:
214:
49:
488:
pulmonary edema. Either one of these will probably include dozens of notable people. But
785:
whatever) I hope this does not seem mean, it's simply what I feel are valid questions.--
1242:
234:, not "circumstances concurrent with or immediately preceding the death." For example,
158:
157:- "It's a hard article to maintain" is no argument for deletion; if that was the case,
1008:
With great regret, because it's a wonderfully entertaining article, I have to go with
951:
834:
627:
121:
1230:
1093:
1031:
1013:
947:
447:
405:
363:
286:
235:
1294:
984:
919:
653:
576:
323:
104:
1272:
1166:
1148:
931:
881:
852:
799:
748:
723:
707:
major league baseball player who died of a beaning in a major league game, only
675:
631:
601:
545:
494:
463:
439:
435:
377:
344:
257:
184:
133:
1114:
455:
451:
1205:
1267:
how interesting they make the description of a death sound. All of this is
120:" arguments. No matter how "interesting" this list is, it is theoretically
1049:
1000:
873:
399:
395:
210:
877:
243:
484:'s official cause of death is listed as both congestive heart failure
112:
This is the second nomination, but virtually all keep opinions in the
626:." But this should make it even clearer how badly the list violates
256:
roughly concurrent with his or her death to make it also unique.
1351:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
967:
963:
872:
I don't agree it's arbitrary. In mortality statistics deaths by
282:
278:
880:
even though both involve infections from bacteria in the genus
239:
703:
President who died as a result of medical malpractice, only
658:
List of people who died of rare diseases and rare accidents
132:
over whether a death should be included in the article.
1271:, and that, of course, can play no part in an article.
1113:. Great article, should be kept, no further comments.
125:
100:
96:
92:
1192:, in some unusual, although utterly subjective, way--
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1361:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1026:. Whilst looking for something else I found the
622:. So, technically, the article title should be "
246:. Grandpa now has instant parity with the Pope.
743:president to die from cirrhosis of the liver (
530:Therefore baseball related death is unusual.--
339:died of it or because it's not something that
227:to set a non-arbitrary standard based on them.
8:
674:who died that way and not some average Joe.
539:I'd like to warn you against making further
376:being crushed to death and not anyone else.
833:(which, if used for this article, violate
285:there was 3696 lightening deaths in the
1045:Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable
876:are treated differently than deaths by
418:ing this, is the uncertaintly of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
179:argument, which is that the list is
213:, but still I think it's doable.--
24:
774:President of the French Republic
845:), and I will gladly show the
735:president to die from cancer (
230:Secondly, statistics exist on
1:
1326:11:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
1316:07:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
1298:02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
1288:22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1262:20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1247:18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1234:15:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1221:05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1209:03:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1197:21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1185:02:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1165:- it could be handy someday.
1156:01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1142:00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1130:23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1118:22:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1102:12:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1081:07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1069:05:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1053:19:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1035:19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1017:18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1004:07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
988:07:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
978:14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
958:14:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
939:23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
923:23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
889:01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
868:19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
824:04:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
815:22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
790:16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
764:15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
727:23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
683:22:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
665:03:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
647:19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
605:19:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
585:04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
571:03:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
561:17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
535:17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
521:17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
510:16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
475:13:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
427:12:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
410:10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
385:10:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
367:10:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
352:07:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
327:07:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
308:11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
298:07:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
273:06:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
218:06:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
200:02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
171:01:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
149:00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
53:02:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
782:President of the Philippines
1378:
747:). Got a better standard?
624:List of interesting deaths
1303:original research to me.
1354:Please do not modify it.
1028:List_of_important_operas
687:That's why I stated the
32:Please do not modify it.
116:were backed by simple "
359:List of notable deaths
126:additions and removals
67:List of unusual deaths
59:List of unusual deaths
609:Yet again, these are
566:out the first post.--
414:My main objection to
1092:: The criteria that
848:reductio ad absurdum
770:President of Finland
778:President of Mexico
691:of the occurrence.
114:original nomination
831:stipulate criteria
1269:original research
1183:
739:). There is only
699:. There was only
468:Timothy Treadwell
444:Sherwood Anderson
1369:
1356:
1285:
1169:
865:
812:
761:
737:Ulysses S. Grant
644:
558:
541:personal attacks
507:
482:Augusto Pinochet
460:Joseph W. Burrus
270:
197:
146:
108:
90:
34:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1359:deletion review
1352:
1308:"unusual death"
1284:
1278:
1153:Schreit mich an
936:Schreit mich an
864:
858:
811:
805:
760:
754:
745:Franklin Pierce
680:Schreit mich an
643:
637:
557:
551:
506:
500:
382:Schreit mich an
357:Change name to
349:Schreit mich an
269:
263:
196:
190:
145:
139:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1375:
1373:
1364:
1363:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1280:
1250:
1249:
1236:
1223:
1211:
1199:
1187:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1132:
1120:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1084:
1083:
1071:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1020:
1019:
1006:
993:
992:
991:
990:
980:
944:
943:
942:
941:
926:
925:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
860:
807:
756:
731:There is only
667:
639:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
573:
553:
537:
502:
430:
429:
424:Simon Cursitor
412:
389:
388:
387:
354:
329:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
300:
265:
250:
249:
248:
247:
232:cause of death
228:
221:
220:
204:
203:
202:
192:
159:George W. Bush
141:
110:
109:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1374:
1362:
1360:
1355:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1327:
1324:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1314:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1283:
1276:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1237:
1235:
1232:
1227:
1224:
1222:
1219:
1215:
1214:Vehement keep
1212:
1210:
1207:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1168:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1128:
1127:Eddie Willers
1124:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1103:
1100:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1075:
1072:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1051:
1046:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1005:
1002:
998:
995:
994:
989:
986:
981:
979:
976:
972:
969:
965:
961:
960:
959:
956:
952:
949:
948:Leptospirosis
946:
945:
940:
937:
933:
928:
927:
924:
921:
917:
914:
913:
912:
911:
890:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
863:
856:
855:
850:
849:
844:
840:
836:
832:
827:
826:
825:
822:
818:
817:
816:
810:
803:
802:
797:
793:
792:
791:
788:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
759:
752:
751:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
729:
728:
725:
720:
719:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:one of a kind
694:
690:
686:
685:
684:
681:
677:
673:
668:
666:
663:
659:
655:
650:
649:
648:
642:
635:
634:
629:
625:
621:
616:
612:
608:
607:
606:
603:
599:
596:
586:
583:
578:
574:
572:
569:
564:
563:
562:
556:
549:
548:
542:
538:
536:
533:
528:
525:
524:
523:
522:
519:
513:
512:
511:
505:
498:
497:
491:
490:both together
487:
483:
478:
477:
476:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
448:Georgi Markov
445:
441:
437:
432:
431:
428:
425:
421:
417:
413:
411:
407:
404:
401:
397:
393:
390:
386:
383:
379:
375:
374:Pope John XXI
370:
369:
368:
365:
361:
360:
355:
353:
350:
346:
342:
338:
333:
330:
328:
325:
320:
317:
316:
309:
306:
301:
299:
296:
291:
288:
287:United States
284:
280:
276:
275:
274:
268:
261:
260:
254:
253:
252:
251:
245:
241:
237:
236:Pope John XXI
233:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
205:
201:
195:
188:
187:
182:
181:theoretically
178:
174:
173:
172:
169:
165:
160:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
144:
137:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1353:
1350:
1344:
1323:DavidWBrooks
1273:
1259:Trollderella
1238:
1225:
1213:
1201:
1189:
1162:
1134:
1122:
1110:
1099:DavidWBrooks
1089:
1078:Verkhovensky
1073:
1066:Trollderella
1061:
1039:
1023:
1009:
996:
915:
853:
846:
800:
795:
749:
740:
732:
717:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
671:
654:Rare disease
632:
619:
614:
610:
597:
577:rare disease
546:
514:
495:
489:
485:
419:
415:
391:
373:
356:
340:
336:
331:
318:
305:DavidWBrooks
258:
231:
206:
185:
180:
176:
168:DavidWBrooks
163:
154:
134:
122:unverifiable
111:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1194:Sandy Scott
1139:Mistergrind
882:clostridium
620:interesting
580:homicide.--
464:Brian Wells
440:Ray Chapman
436:Hello Kitty
1313:T. Anthony
1218:Biruitorul
975:T. Anthony
955:T. Anthony
886:T. Anthony
821:T. Anthony
787:T. Anthony
718:uniqueness
689:uniqueness
662:T. Anthony
582:T. Anthony
568:T. Anthony
532:T. Anthony
518:T. Anthony
472:T. Anthony
456:Vic Morrow
452:Keith Relf
303:through. -
295:T. Anthony
215:T. Anthony
130:squabbling
50:Cbrown1023
1243:Jrothwell
1180:E-mail me
1172:Talk Page
672:President
615:arbitrary
118:I like it
1311:there)--
1282:contribs
1231:Dstanfor
1176:Contribs
1094:Dstanfor
1032:WMMartin
1014:WMMartin
874:botulism
862:contribs
809:contribs
758:contribs
641:contribs
611:examples
555:contribs
504:contribs
364:VegaDark
267:contribs
211:progeria
194:contribs
143:contribs
1295:THollan
1190:Kill it
1090:Comment
1040:comment
1024:Comment
985:THollan
920:THollan
878:tetanus
839:WP:NPOV
493:design.
420:unusual
324:The Way
244:benzene
84:protect
79:history
1274:Simões
1239:Delete
1226:Delete
1167:Nwwaew
1149:BigHaz
1123:Delete
1010:Delete
932:BigHaz
854:Simões
843:WP:NOR
841:, and
801:Simões
796:throat
780:, and
750:Simões
724:B.Wind
695:means
693:Unique
676:BigHaz
633:Simões
602:B.Wind
547:Simões
496:Simões
378:BigHaz
345:BigHaz
332:Delete
319:Delete
259:Simões
186:Simões
135:Simões
88:delete
1115:Effer
466:, or
277:From
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1245:///
1206:Dahn
1202:Keep
1163:Keep
1135:Keep
1111:Keep
1074:Keep
1062:Keep
997:keep
968:1996
964:1986
916:Keep
835:WP:V
628:WP:V
598:Keep
416:keep
392:Keep
283:2003
279:1959
207:Keep
155:Keep
128:and
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:Keep
1178:) (
1174:) (
1050:DGG
1001:DGG
966:to
741:one
733:one
713:one
709:one
705:one
701:one
486:and
408:”.
406:aym
403:fys
398:. “
396:Fys
281:to
242:of
240:ppb
164:any
1286:)
1151:-
934:-
866:)
851:.
837:,
813:)
776:,
772:,
762:)
678:-
645:)
630:.
559:)
508:)
462:,
458:,
454:,
450:,
446:,
442:,
400:Ta
380:-
347:-
341:we
337:he
271:)
198:)
177:my
147:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
1279:/
1277:(
1182:)
1170:(
859:/
857:(
806:/
804:(
755:/
753:(
638:/
636:(
552:/
550:(
501:/
499:(
289:.
264:/
262:(
191:/
189:(
140:/
138:(
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.