Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kangaroo attacks in Australia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 November 2. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
| This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 January 3. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kangaroo attacks in Australia[edit]
- Kangaroo attacks in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability to sustain an article, seems to be heavily based on WP:OR/WP:SYN and non-reliable sources. Orderinchaos 17:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 17:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The references appear to be reputable daily newspapers from Australia, and what appears to be original research probably appeared in the source material. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note WP:SYN - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." At least two of the main sources are self-published web pages which themselves do not cite their sources. Orderinchaos 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The conclusion is explicitly stated in the source: Kangaroo Attacks in Australia Spotlight Growing Turf War James4750 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note WP:SYN - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." At least two of the main sources are self-published web pages which themselves do not cite their sources. Orderinchaos 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment hmmm...(scratching head) I guess my main problem is that the existence of the article implies a level of notability to the subject which isn't present in reality. There is some reportage in press (more than I'd thought actually). Need to look into this one some more. At the very least Kangaroo (only at 30kb) should have a section on this before the daughter article was created. i.e. merge is an option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable topic which has been discussed by National Geographic and other sources James4750 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No less notable than any of the other "x attacks in Australia" articles; doesn't seem like a case of synthesis to me, as the topic of 'roo attacks in general is covered in sources, not just various examples thereof. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Delete per nom, I didn't realize these articles were all made by the same author. Orderinchaos is convincing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. All of the "attacks in Australia" articles were created by the same author over the last couple of weeks, and all of them are problematic in the same ways. 2. Randomly hunting through newspaper archives for incidents that happen to match a predetermined set of facts is indeed WP:SYN. Orderinchaos 07:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. The articles are in the same format as the American articles on alligators, bears, cougars, sharks and snakes which have been here for years. 2. There are a huge number of publications about animal attacks in Australia James4750 (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here as well, the animals you've listed are generally predatory. Kangaroos, koalas and magpies aren't. (Although I will give you drop bears).You've gone a little bit overboard on the range of articles. Show me some similar US articles on squirrels, beavers and groundhogs. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. The articles are in the same format as the American articles on alligators, bears, cougars, sharks and snakes which have been here for years. 2. There are a huge number of publications about animal attacks in Australia James4750 (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. All of the "attacks in Australia" articles were created by the same author over the last couple of weeks, and all of them are problematic in the same ways. 2. Randomly hunting through newspaper archives for incidents that happen to match a predetermined set of facts is indeed WP:SYN. Orderinchaos 07:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to KangarooDelete. Kangaroos are so common in Australia that most "attacks" go unreported. Those that do make it to the media are the more unusual ones, generally used as filler material. Many are not even attacks, such as the most recent listed in the article, which is clearly the case of an injured and disoriented roo simply trying to escape from an unfamiliar environment. (Does anyone believe for a minute that a kangaroo deliberately jumped through the window of a home so that it could attack a family?) Only 20 km (12 mi) from the CBD of Australia's 7th largest city, kangaroos can be seen grazing on the lawns of family homes in large numbers. The become disoriented because of civilisation encroaching on their natural grazing land and often run into man-made objects that are out of place in the bush. That's why incidents such as this happen. It's not a deliberate attack a simplied by the article. The second last incident in the article is another example of a non-attack, a hungry kangaroo trying to eat, being forced away from scarce food by people who later killed it. The kangaroo was obviously just trying to defend its right to eat and not die. These incidents are generally taken out of context, as they have in the article. Any mention of real attacks should be in Kangaroo but a separate article that just lists incidents perceived as attacks by an editor isn't warranted. Unless, of course, Cat attacks in Australia, Fly attacks in Australia and Bully ant attacks in Australia are seen as valid articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the reason, it is still an attack. The last one was notable enough for CNN and the BBC. There isn't enough room in Kangaroo to describe all of them. James4750 (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What definition of attack are you using? Wikitionary says that an attack is "an attempt to cause damage or injury to, or to somehow detract from the worth or credibility of, a person, position, idea, object, or thing, by physical, verbal, emotional, or other assault." The first example I used was an attempt at escape. The attack only came when the man grabbed the kangaroo, which would have scared the hell out of it. It was he who attacked, not the kangaroo. That it was covered in foreign media perhaps gives it notability for inclusion in Human attacks in Australia, but not this article. The second I mentioned was a defence, not an attack. There is a difference. As for listing them all in Kangaroo, that article is currently only 30.5KB. Merging the entire contents of this article would only increase the size to 37.5KB. There is plenty of room to add real attacks to the article, if there is a need. I don't think there is. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok from your list: damage.. to.. an object (house).. by physical.. assault (doesn't have to be intentional). Not everything needs to be merged into Kangaroo, there's also Kangaroo emblems and popular culture and Kangaroo meat James4750 (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Attempt" implies intent. As for the existence of other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it could be Injuries to persons or damages to property caused by kangaroos which may or may not be deliberate, provoked or in self-defence but that would be a little long-winded. James4750 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Attempt" implies intent. As for the existence of other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok from your list: damage.. to.. an object (house).. by physical.. assault (doesn't have to be intentional). Not everything needs to be merged into Kangaroo, there's also Kangaroo emblems and popular culture and Kangaroo meat James4750 (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What definition of attack are you using? Wikitionary says that an attack is "an attempt to cause damage or injury to, or to somehow detract from the worth or credibility of, a person, position, idea, object, or thing, by physical, verbal, emotional, or other assault." The first example I used was an attempt at escape. The attack only came when the man grabbed the kangaroo, which would have scared the hell out of it. It was he who attacked, not the kangaroo. That it was covered in foreign media perhaps gives it notability for inclusion in Human attacks in Australia, but not this article. The second I mentioned was a defence, not an attack. There is a difference. As for listing them all in Kangaroo, that article is currently only 30.5KB. Merging the entire contents of this article would only increase the size to 37.5KB. There is plenty of room to add real attacks to the article, if there is a need. I don't think there is. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the reason, it is still an attack. The last one was notable enough for CNN and the BBC. There isn't enough room in Kangaroo to describe all of them. James4750 (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#NEWS - this is a collection of trivial news reports. Kangaroos are common, large and not very smart animals with claws which sometimes panic and strike out at people when they feel cornered or are in territory which isn't familiar to them. I don't see any reason why individual attacks need to be covered. I once had a kangaroo in my backyard (which isn't at all uncommon in the small city where I live) which the park rangers told me to leave well alone when I rang to report it. If I'd bothered it and it had kicked me (deliberately or accidentally) it seems that I would have met this article's inclusion criteria... Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal cougar attacks in North America by decade: While Wikipedia is not a news archive, the large body of news stories over the years about cougar attacks (including a number of stories about cougar attacks in general rather than a particular single attack, show that this topic satisfies WP:N. I might not agree with an article about each attack which makes the newspapers, but collectively they are notable and a documented list is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James4750 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That deletion discussion (from two years ago) is about an article that deals with "fatal" attacks. None of the attacks in this article are fatal and some aren't even attacks. That makes them significantly less notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal cougar attacks in North America by decade: While Wikipedia is not a news archive, the large body of news stories over the years about cougar attacks (including a number of stories about cougar attacks in general rather than a particular single attack, show that this topic satisfies WP:N. I might not agree with an article about each attack which makes the newspapers, but collectively they are notable and a documented list is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James4750 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and AussieLegend's points which are all valid. Some of the incidents may be worth summarising into the Interaction with humans section in the kangaroo article. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and other comments above. --GenericBob (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Kangaroo as an Australian i can assure you kangaroos attack quite often however the severity is on a large scale, whilst it is worth a mention and maybe a list in the Kangaroo article, maybe a new article such as "Australian Widlife Attacks" would be more appropriate, considering Australia has the top 10 deadliest snakes, not to mention our crocs and koalas (believe me u dont want to get on the wrong side of a koala), just some food for thought. Is worth a mention that drought does play a very large part in Australian animal attacks.ZooPro 12:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Crikey seems we already have an article called Animal attacks in Australia why not just move info into that sections, with all the animal attack info that would be a top quality article.ZooPro 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the info wouldn't fit in one article. James4750 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AS per my earlier comments,[1] Animal attacks in Australia is currently 30.1KB, Merging in this article would increase the article size to around 40KB. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone put them in, but it was just removed [2] because it was too large James4750 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what the edit summary says or what is indicated by the edits made. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was still removed, this article can't be merged into it if the info is being removed. James4750 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the consensus of this AfD is to merge then that's what will happen. I suspect though that the edit performed was to eliminate the non-notable entires. There are a lot of them in all of the attack articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, a hell of a lot of them have simply been mined from NLA sources in violation of WP:SYN ... only those discussed in the context of historical attacks in secondary sources could reasonably speaking be included. Orderinchaos 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the consensus of this AfD is to merge then that's what will happen. I suspect though that the edit performed was to eliminate the non-notable entires. There are a lot of them in all of the attack articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was still removed, this article can't be merged into it if the info is being removed. James4750 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what the edit summary says or what is indicated by the edits made. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone put them in, but it was just removed [2] because it was too large James4750 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AS per my earlier comments,[1] Animal attacks in Australia is currently 30.1KB, Merging in this article would increase the article size to around 40KB. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the info wouldn't fit in one article. James4750 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Crikey seems we already have an article called Animal attacks in Australia why not just move info into that sections, with all the animal attack info that would be a top quality article.ZooPro 12:40, 29 October 2009 (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.