Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks

Add links
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 merge to Animal attack. This has been an extensive discussion that has received a large amount of input. The consensus is somewhere on the spectrum between Delete and Merge - with many commentors noting that some of the more notable events could be merged to Animal attack or elsewhere, but many of the less notable entries do not belong in any existing article. Accordingly, I am going to close this as a merge, with the above caveat - it is not necessary to move each item from this list into Animal attack, some list items might be merged elsewhere (like an article for the specific notable individual) and many won't be merged at all. Once done, please redirect the article to Animal attack to complete the merging process. ST47 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a obituary service. It is impossible to include all deaths in WIkipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into animal attack which is much the same topic. See WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you merge exactly? The list is long enough to have its own article, and too long to be merged to this other article. Dream Focus 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page in question seems half-baked. To start at the top, its title should be changed to conform to our usual style. As the animal attacks page is more established, it seems best to consolidate there and spinoff from there in a more organised way. There's lots of information out there about this sort of thing and so a comprehensive structure seems required. Here's a selection of sources, from a quick browse of Google scholar, to give a feel for the scope of the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Deaths resulting from animal attacks in the United States
      2. Human–wildlife conflict in Mozambique: a national perspective, with emphasis on wildlife attacks on humans
      3. Characterization and prevention of attacks on humans
      4. Alligator attacks in southwest Florida
      5. Human attacks by large felid carnivores in captivity and in the wild
      6. Human fatalities resulting from dog attacks in the United States, 1979–2005
      7. Cougar attacks on humans in the United States and Canada
      8. Crocodile attack in Australia: an analysis of its incidence and review of the pathology and management of crocodilian attacks in general
      9. Causes and mechanisms of death in fatal water buffalo attacks
      10. Wild boar attacks
  • Merge as above, after removing incidents that aren't WP:NOTABLE. Some of the language in the article seems sensational, such as "Swallowed Whole By 23-Foot Python". doubleA11225 17:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is video footage of a man who was swallowed by a python being cut out of the snake. [1] This is Time magazine. Dream Focus 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample references showing this sort of thing does get ample news coverage. Some of the names listed have their own articles even. This is perfectly valid list article, just rename it to have a "list of". Dream Focus 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, the few notable entries only (10 by my count). Restricting this to people with articles sounds like a reasonable inclusion criterion, but it doesn't need its own article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 18:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Article is terribly written but some notable people are mentioned. Suggest that the entire article is either draftified or completely rewritten to the same format as List of people who died in traffic collisions. And all-non notable people, sourced or not, need not be included. Ajf773 (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/selective merge Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of obituaries merely because these are relatively unusual. The main article should certainly be expanded with a section for notable examples (e.g. Steve Irwin) and key statistics but an attempt to list all the non-notable events found in the news is beyond our scope. Fatal dog attacks in the United States, etc. should go too. Reywas92Talk 18:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge, but very pruned as Elmidae and Ajf773 mention. It is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, and I'd also question whether even notable people should be mentioned at the animal attack article where the merge could go. The better place to house such information would be at individual BLPs since notable and killed by an animal is an odd cross sectioning for a list. A category would be better to use in such a case. That said, the merge would at least be an improvement over this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding to my rationale, but if there isn't consensus on what specifically to merge if at all, I think the next best option would be to outright delete rather than letting the page remain. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    After the relisting, the more I look at this, the more I just say delete and let categories handle this. That's a much better fit for this than a list, and it takes care of the notability of the individuals as needing a BLP, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/draftify Listing all verifiable animal fatalities is a doomed premise, per WP:CSC: lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group... should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K). This article is at 57 kilobytes and not close to complete. There are two possible directions you could go to create a similar article that does fall in line with policy:
    1. Make a list of notable people killed by animals
    2. Make a WP:LISTOFLISTS of animal fatalities (cf. the many list articles for particular animal types or locations, in subcategories of Category:Deaths due to animal attacks, e.g. List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of fatal snake bites in Australia, List of fatal shark attacks in the United States, List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s), etc.
The content of this article would not be a useful basis for #2, but may be marginally useful as a starting point for #1. But it probably shouldn't exist in article space as it currently exists. Colin M (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a useful list with proper WP:RS meets WP:GNG. Regarding the nominator's statement It is impossible to include all deaths in WIkipedia. It is possible ...however this list only covers People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks and so it is focussed and finite and relevant. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to animal attack- I agree that, at the very least, this list should be massively pruned to only include the notable, blue-linked individuals. At that point, the list would be small and manageable enough to be integrated into the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to the appropriate list articles mentioned by Colin M, create new ones where appropriate, and merge the rest into animal attack to PRESERVE. The present list is styled incorrectly and will become too long if kept. Note that List of fatal bear attacks in North America for example contains many sourced entries with no article. StonyBrook (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't keep I don't really care whether this article is deleted, redirected, merged, or userfied, but we really shouldn't be rewarding Andrew Davidson's now infamous Googling up of a list of sources and not bothering to read or analyze any of them before copy-pasting them onto AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if notable people are included. ミラP 23:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs pruning to notable people or incidents (like 2013 New Brunswick python attack). Would like to remove year sections (might allow centuries) and make large table like auto accidents mentioned above. StrayBolt (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft space or userfy There are an utterly massive amount of sources covering animal attacks, so the topic will almost certainly meet WP:LISTN. Additionally, the list could serve as a useful index, so it also meets WP:LISTPURP. However, the list needs substantial editing: it should be limited to notable people and attacks, have sub-sections covering a greater amount of time than a single year, and have a lede that adequately contextualizes the article and explains what is included. The list needs a lot of work, so I think making it a draft and allowing the creator and interested editors to improve it would be the best outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:JaneciaTaylor spent so much time on this. The list could be improved, sure. But it is all sourced. The subject is notable, media and scientific publications discuss attacks on humans by animals. A list for navigation as well as a compilation of incidents makes sense. Eostrix (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to do with this article, but I agree with those that say it cannot remain as it is. As of right now, the list criteria are far too wide. Millions of people have died of animal attacks over the course of human history, possibly even billions if prehistory is included. As recently as the turn of 20th century, one tiger alone in India had 400 victims. Deleting doesn't seem like a good idea, given it easily passes WP:LISTN. Trimming down to blue-linked persons seems a natural solution, but probably leaves out the most interesting parts, and sources tend to select for the more interesting on this topic. Spreading out into sub-lists is another idea, but I'm kind of uneasy with the proliferation of articles like List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s) -- did anyone beside us bother to tally that list up or is it a Wikipedia Original? Daß Wölf 00:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Makes some sense as type of death category, but list? Particularly since in the past days this was much more common. In primitive societies, this was more common. And we can also quibble on whether getting bitten, then getting an infection and dying is a death by animal attack or not... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Broad range of views; perhaps the article should be "notable people" killed in Animal attacks? Try a re-list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lightburst. There's no good policy based reasoning prohibiting such a list.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ludicrously indiscriminate. There's no good policy-based reasoning for having such a list in an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 23:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still a broad range of views with only one additional comment since the re-list. Let's try one last re-list before closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMHO this is clearly valid. It is too long to merge into animal attacks article, or, you could do that but it would be instantly acceptable for any editor to immediately split it out again. And calls to merge it and then delete it are invalid, because that just erases the contribution history, when everything is added back anew, i suppose.
Unless i missed it, there is no recognition in discussion above about guideline wp:CLNT, which basically says categories, lists, navigation templates are complementary. And it suggests that if there is a category then a corresponding list-article is okay. Here, we have categories like Category:Deaths due to animal attacks in the United States. Certainly all the individuals listed there can be included in a list-article. And a list-article can organize the info sensibly, can include source footnotes, can include redlink items suggesting where an article is wanted, can include "blacklink" items not suggesting an item. For the article-haters / deletionists, if you are serious about your craft you should want to KEEP list-articles like this to head off separate creations of individual artices.
There are potential editing issues, to be discussed at its talk page. For example about how to organize one overall list like this, vs. existing related smaller lists like: List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of fatal cougar attacks in North America, List of fatal shark attacks in the United States, List of fatal snake bites in the United States, List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s), List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (before 2000). Should overall organization be world-wide by year. Or group by type of animal. Or group by country/state location of attack. And which fields should be included and be sortable. Allow two organizational approaches that ultimately cover all the same items, or not. I wouldn't second-guess the editor(s) active here, myself. But all these are questions about editing, not about overall notability, which is clear. "People killed by animal attacks" is a real thing, so wp:NLIST is met. And this is an extraordinary and interesting list! --Doncram (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and choose a better title. Obviously useful for Wikipedia. A lot of good useful work has been put into this. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category:Deaths due to animal attacks and its various subcategories are quite sufficient for the victims with articles, i.e. the notable ones. A list of all victims is wildly impractical. According to CBS News, dogs kill 17,400 people a year, and snakes 60,000, and they don't even top the list of the deadliest animals.[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - do we delete unusual but not notable WP:NOTNEWS events, or combine them into lists? Peter James (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the numbers are potentially enormous, as quoted by Clarityfiend from CBS above. And 50,000 people die from snake bites each year. Rely on categories to provide lists of notable people who have died from animal attacks, and use articles such as Animal attack or Animal attacks in Australia to cover information on the topic, with individual cases sourced as examples. PamD 08:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hmm, following up on this topic, List of deadliest animals to humans is interesting: Dogs appear in the second list but not the first one (ie does a rabies-transmitting bite count?), and the whole thing could do with some attention by interested editors. PamD 08:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    An example of a person killed in an animal attack: woman trampled to death by cattle. Interesting news item, and a tragedy for her family and friends, and proably traumatic for all others involved. Probably happens hundreds of times a year, world-wide. I can't actually find a Wikipedia article about the topic, if I wanted to research how common cattle attacks (outside bull-fighting) are as a cause of death. On the other hand, if I was interested, I might be just as interested in someone put in a wheelchair for life by an attack by cattle, not just deaths. Where's the article on attacks by cattle (in what country? on farm workers or on passers-by? fatal or not? breed of cattle? ... !). If this list survives, this lady's demise could be included ... but it really can't be allowed to continue as such an indiscriminate and potentially massive list. PamD 09:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. There's no way the list can ever be complete, which is normally a requirement for lists containing non-notable people, per WP:LISTPEOPLE. It's just a sampler providing an arbitrary sampling of less than 1% people who qualify to be on the list. (Too bad, someone obviously put a lot of work and love into the page.)ApLundell (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete impractical, WP:NOTNEWS, random sampling of humans who died of X. Literally thousands of stories of this are reported every year. Agricolae (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, How can we make sure the list is complete? so it is betterto merge it into animal attack. Alex-h (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as first choice. The list is does not meet GNG. The fact that "animal attacks", as a topic, meets GNG, or that a specific animal attack meets GNG, does not mean that "list of people killed in animal attacks" meets GNG. In order for that topic ("List of people killed in animal attacks") to be notable, we'd have to have secondary sources that don't (a) talk about animal attacks in general, nor (b) talk about a specific attack, but rather (c) publish a list of people killed in animal attacks. AFAICT, none of the sources in the article are such a list, and no such list exists published be RSes. For us to take a bunch of individual animal attacks and make a list out of it is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. It violates our WP:NOR policy. This is exactly what the guideline WP:LISTN and the essay WP:LISTCRUFT talk about. With respect, !votes that assert that the list meets GNG should be totally discounted by the closer, absent any evidence of a source that publishes such a list. (I would change by !vote to keep if there were WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV, not about animal attacks in general or a specific animal attack, but listing people who died in animal attacks.) Merge with or without redirect as second choice – I'm not even sure that a list of notable animal attacks is a good addition to the article Animal attack, but I suppose that's a discussion to be had on that article's talk page. There is probably little harm in turning the article into a redirect to Animal attacks, and then any notable entries can be merged from the history if there's consensus to do so. – Levivich 16:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t care If this is nominated for deletion so should Fatal dog attacks in the United States and people who died in snake attacks. If my article is going to be merged with another article so should their articles. If you think the article should be deleted or merged I’m fine with that, but it is completely unfair to not merge or delete other articles who are similar fashion than mine as well. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's certainly discouraging to work on an article or list and have it nominated for deletion. Every editor understands that; please don't take it personally. "Other stuff exists" is a common but misguided argument. There are a lot of similar lists, and I (and probably most delete/merge !voters here) think they all need to be revised. For example, Crocodile attacks has a list of notable attacks, which I think is fine. However, List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States should be deleted, as should List of fatal cougar attacks in North America, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of wolf attacks in North America (not even fatal, come on!)], List of fatal snake bites in Australia, List of fatal snake bites in the United States, List of fatal shark attacks in the United States, and the overly-narrow and duplicative List of fatal shark attacks in California, along with any others like it. Fatal dog attacks in the United States is supposed to be an article about dog attacks (similar to Animal attacks), and the lengthy list in that article should be cut down or removed. – Levivich 19:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you may be painting with an overly broad brush in lumping all these articles together. For example, cougar attacks are very rare. And so it's quite possible to make List of fatal cougar attacks in North America be a "Short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group", per WP:CSC. Whereas this is not possible for, say, dogs. Colin M (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well your statement isn’t true. The wiki article said “These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.” If you want my article that I worked all day on to be deleted. You should also nominate the other articles for deletion as well JaneciaTaylor (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        A second essay, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, has a section dedicated to why this is an argument to avoid. Anyhow, both are essays rather than official policy, so it makes little sense to Wikilawyer over it. In the end, each page must stand or fall on its own merits. It stinks to work all day and have your work negated, but all Wikipedia contributions are subject to alteration or deletion. Wikipedia is community-based, and sometimes this means a page someone has been working on for years gets deleted because community consensus decides it is not sufficiently encyclopedic. That is just the nature of the beast, and so it is always a risk when one creates a new page that the larger community will look on it with disfavor and that time will have been wasted. I am not being facetious when I say that if you want to determine content unilaterally, a web hosting service is the better place to upload your content. As to you should nominate the other articles, it might have been a good approach at the start to do a combined nomination for all the analogous pages (there are also counter arguments), but it is probably best not to add additional pages to a nomination once a number of people have expressed their opinion (as their opinion may not be the same for all of the added pages), while likewise, once one discussion is underway on one page, it is usually better to wait for it to end, so that one can allow the outcome on that proposal to inform the decision on whether to initiate further related proposals. Agricolae (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll probably get around to nominating most of the others for deletion (other than the rare ones) after this Afd is wrapped up. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with some of the claims. Steve Irwin is a notable person and some of the other people on this list are. ABC News and The Washington Post are reliable sources so if you say my article should be deleted because I have never cite any sources. You have never read my references. You probably never even looked at my article, because I did. I disagree with everything Levivich said, because it: does cite reliable sources. This list can stand alone if I rename it to “Notable people that died from animal attacks.” It would be a short list. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a few people in the list are notable, and many reliable sources have been used to document individual deaths, but that doesn't mean that 'people who died of X' is a categorization representing a culturally significant phenomenon (along the lines of WP:CROSSCAT) and not just a curiosity, such that it is worth a stand-alone list rather than just a category. Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For me, it's not that the list doesn't cite any sources, it's that it doesn't cite any sources that are, themselves, a list of people killed in animal attacks. Compare List of black quarterbacks, among its sources are other lists of black quarterbacks [3] [4] [5] that publish an actual list of the names of black quarterbacks (and information about them). So it's not just that the quarterbacks as individuals are notable, but the list as a whole is notable. The reason I'm !voting delete is because I don't see a WP:RS that's a "list of people killed by animals". So "black + quarterback" is a notable intersection (because reliable sources have published lists of black quarterbacks) but "person + killed by animal" does not appear to be (because RSes apparently haven't published such lists). This is basically what WP:CROSSCAT #6 is talking about. I would change my !vote if I saw a "list of people killed by animals" published by three different reliable sources. (And yes, of course I read the article before I !voted, and you did a very good job with it. I really am sorry that Wikipedia sucks like this sometimes, but it's a necessary evil to have notability requirements for lists.) – Levivich 03:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still disagree with you. I’m not breaking any rules. I used reliable sources. I bet you have never even looked at my article. Look up reliable sources for Wikipedia ABC news and The Washington Post are reliable sources. I won’t let my article get deleted because you said “it doesn’t have any reliable sources,” because you probably never even look at it. Look at this list WP:RSPSOURCES. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • This confuses two different things - reliable sources that demonstrate an individual entry is verifiable, versus reliable sources that show the phenomenon itself is of sufficient notability and cultural significance to justify presenting such a list. Basically, if The Post or ABC did a story on notable instances in which people were killed by animals, that would provide notability for the topic, while the same sources periodically having articles describing deaths of individuals who happened to die in an animal attack is just reporting the news, something that Wikipedia does not do. That Steve Irwin, king Alfonso I of Asturias, and the father of one of my schoolmates all died of animal attacks, and that all three can individually be fully documented, does not, in and of itself, justify a page that ostensibly is to list everyone who ever died of animal attacks. Is the collective notable, as opposed to it being just one of the many ways there are to surrender this mortal coil? And I don't think anyone is saying you broke any rules. Agricolae (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It never really says you can’t use those references as a sources.JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And nobody is saying you can't use those as references. References for what though? They are references that verify the specific items they are being used to document, but demonstrating the notability of the overall subject is a different thing entirely. Agricolae (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The references are what I used to cite sources with. Your talking about notability right? My article follows WP:NEXIST. Notability determines the existence of reliable sources in an article. What you are saying is my article should be deleted because it has references to reliable news sources, but the rule doesn’t really say if you use news sources your article should be deleted, and notability isn’t different it just determining reliable sources in an article, and my article has reliable sources.JaneciaTaylor (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources exist that are a list of people killed in animal attacks? Can you link to a few examples? – Levivich 20:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Yes, I know that references are what you use to cite sources. And yes, notability is determined by the existence of notable sources on the topic. Let me give you an example: I know of a whole sequence of articles in a major city newspaper that is unquestionably a reliable source about an instance of a woman dying while having sex, hanging out of a second-floor window, when the harness she was using broke. That doesn't meant that this particular event is notable, even though there are numerous reliable sources, because WP:NOTNEWS - While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. List of people who died after falling from a second floor window while having sex is not established as a notable topic by documenting that individual instances are verifiable, which is what your references are doing for death-by-animal. It has to more than just be known to happen, it should be in some way a culturally significant phenomenon (borrowing the language from WP:CROSSCAT). To put it another way, a collection of reliable source with individual stories like "West-side resident dies after unusual fall" is an example of newsworthy but non-notable happenstance; "Spate of recent deaths demonstrates importance of safe sex" reporting on the phenomenon and listing cases - that would help document that the topic itself is notable. Agricolae (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So a news source is not notable. There are a lot of Wikipedia articles that have news coverage about a person death even if it a famous person, whether it is a list or not. Why don’t their articles get deleted, because it is not a list? If what you said is the case why don’t people with new coverage on their Wikipedia articles don’t get nominated, list or not. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A news source does not necessarily establish notability. A news story about someone's death does not make that person notable. Usually a whole set of news stories about someone's death may make that one event noteworthy without making the individual noteworthy independent of the event. Repeated coverage of a person by multiple media sources, involving separate events, often does make them notable, even when the individual events are not noteworthy because they are 'just news'. THere is no simple equation of 'an event is reported in reliable news sources, so that makes the entire type of event notable.' Agricolae (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty articles that have news sources that are probably not even notable. Why don’t you nominate their’s for deletion? Your argument doesn’t seem right, because there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that have news sources about other people death, and yet don’t nominate them for deletion. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some articles.

Famous people who were killed in animal attacks. https://m.ranker.com/list/famous-people-who-died-of-animal-attack/reference

Top 20 Famous People who were Killed in Animal Attacks https://listsurge.com/top-20-famous-people-killed-animal-attacks/

JaneciaTaylor (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Ranker.com nor ListSurge.com are reliable sources, and at least the latter is of poor quality as well so definitely not WP:RS - dying of food poisoning after eating an animal is not the same as dying of an animal attack. (When it said Marty Feldman had been attacked by shellfish, I thought he had been kicked to death by clams.) Agricolae (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marty Freldman isn’t even on my list, and WP:RSPSOURCES doesn’t even say it isn’t a reliable source. I see you got your information from Facebook which isn’t a reliable source either. WP:RS never stated that you can’t include sources that have their own list.
Here some more links
25 Worst Animal Attacks In Recent History
https://listverse.com/2018/04/29/10-people-killed-by-animals-you-wouldnt-expect/
10 People Killed By Animals You Wouldn’t Expect
https://list25.com/25-worst-animal-attacks-in-recent-memory/
I used more sources besides references to news sources. I also used the person own website, multiple sources. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't mention Marty Feldman but he is given by one of the list sites you provided as potential sources. I was pointing out that his inclusion spoke volumes about the unreliability of that list. No, WP:RSPSOURCES does not list Ranker or ListSurge as unreliable sources - it also doesn't list them as reliable sources. You don't really expect that page to list every single website on the internet and indicate whether or not they are reliable? In general 'something I found on the web' isn't a Reliable Source unless it fulfills some very specific conditions. Since you have read WP:RS, you should have seen the general properties of a reliable source. It is not the fact that they have a list that excludes them. It is that they are just somebody's personal opinion that they put on the internet, and the same applies to your two newer lists. A person's own website is not a WP:RS, except for very specific things, none of which apply here. You seem still to have fundamental misunderstandings about the whole sourcing question, and I am happy to help you sort it out, but I am not sure the middle of a formal AfD process is the right place to keep doing this 'But what about this?', 'No, that does not address the problem' dance we have been doing. Your User Talk page, maybe? Agricolae (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the sources are opinions. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I am talking specifically about the four URLs of lists you have given. These are self-published sources, and they thus indeed represent the personal opinions of their compilers, both in terms of what should be on the list, but also in terms of whether such a list is worth compiling. Self-published web pages almost never represent WP:RS, and as such they do not contribute to establishing notability. Even were a list itself to be notable, that does not mean Wikipedia should have its own list on the same topic. Example: Project Steve is itself a notable list, but Wikipedia should not try to compile its own List of people named Steve who accept the scholarly consensus on evolution. Agricolae (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, but luckily I didn’t rely on those sources. I used it to find people that were killed. They are not articles I used as sources..

Here is the type of sources I used that I think was reliable:

Azaria Chamberlain http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/chamberlain-azaria-chantel-9719

Bryan Jeffrey Griffin https://www.theledger.com/article/LK/20030620/news/608099355/LL/

Richard K Root https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)68682-0/fulltext

You are still missing the point. These are sources documenting the fact that these specific people died of this specific cause, not demonstrating the notability of a listing of everyone who has ever died of that cause. You can also find reliable sources that state an individual person has blue eyes, but everyone has some eye color and we don't have a List of people with blue eyes. Everyone dies of something, what makes this cause of death be considered noteworthy enough to list the people who have died this way? That is what we want a source for. That is the objection being raised, and just repeatedly pointing out 'here is another source showing someone was killed by an animal' doesn't address the concern in the slightest. I am done responding here as I see no benefit in bogging down the AfD even further by you repeatedly putting forward the same type of reference and me repeatedly telling you that is not what is being requested. Again, I am happy to help you understand sourcing on your Talk page, but this conversation, in this venue, is getting neither of us anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/People_Who_Were_Killed_in_Animal_Attacks&oldid=927987222"