Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States

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 no consensus. Many rationales were offered for deletion, both in the nomination and in some of the further participation. These primarily come down to:

  1. Violations of What Wikipedia is not. This article doesn't fit really comfortably in most of the examples of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a memorial site / news aggregator", but it definitely has significant elements of those things, and participants are fairly split on whether it applies. I don't think this particular line of argument is going to settle itself any time soon, because the policy itself does not present a real bright line on this kind of list article. Good faith editors differ on the interpretation.
  2. Violation of Notability (standalone lists). There's a reasonable argument that this is a valid split of other, more general articles, and sources have been presented that discuss this topic as a whole, which is usually the criterion used to determine whether a group of entries warrant a standalone list article - but other participants assert that much of this coverage is rather questionable, and this starts to cross into very emotive territory regarding certain advocacy groups. This notability guideline is one of the more vague ones we have, and it again appears that good faith editors differ over its application to this article.

Beyond those two core arguments, other concerns regarding bad sources and potential BLP issues are mostly editorial issues for individual entries, and there's definitely not an agreement here that the sourcing itself is poor enough to warrant deletion of the article as a whole on that basis.

Some "other stuff exists" arguments were debated here, and they have rather more validity than usual in one sense: This is probably the most emotive and divisive of the many "List of fatal <animal> attacks" that we have, and it might yet be that a more sensible way of handling this long-term disagreement is an RfC to specifically try and work out a consistent guideline for how we should handle them en masse. This is an issue that needs to be settled, but this discussion has reached no clearer consensus than the previous one, and that shows no sign of changing here. ~ mazca talk 11:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal dog attacks in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (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)

This nom will certainly be controversial, and I think it merits a detailed rationale, so please bear with me. 1) this is in violation of WP:IINFO. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it is literally a listing of non-notable people who died in a dog attack. 2) Similarly, WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. None of these people individually meet our notability criteria, and most of them were only covered in local publications. 3) I'm concerned about WP:BLP (which does apply to recently deceased people). There is seemingly no point in listing the names and personal information of non-notable people. See the second paragraph of BLP, which says we must take extra care to have "regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist" 5) WP:NOTNEWS: very few, if any of these events have a lasting notability outside of the 24 hour news cycle 4) I feel that it doesn't meet WP:LISTN We already have Fatal dog attacks, which covers fatal attacks generally, eliminating the need for specialized lists. In reading through the past AFDs, there is clear consensus that the topic of people being killed by dogs is something that is clearly notable. Sources such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 either agreggate breeds of dogs involved in fatal attacks/other statistics, or pick a random year and use it as a test case to analyse trends in fatal dog attacks. This, admittedly, is great coverage to include in a broad concept article. However, none of them provide a convincing justification to listing every single documented fatal dog attack. This list is just overly massive and a complete list would probably be much longer. Sure, some of these attacks may had hundreds of news articles and the broad-concept of 'dog attacks in the United States' is almost definitely notable, but I see no justification to exhaustively listing every single individual case. I'm sure people will have strong and vastly differing opinions, so will end by saying: let's take extra care to be civil and avoid personal attacks here. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia. Focus on content, not people. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages because they constitute the rest of the list:
List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (before 2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Also please consider the WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS issues having this list raises. Imagine if we tried to list all fatal dog attacks from all history and all the world! Eddie891 Talk Work 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Fatal dog attacks is a notable topic, but there's not the sort of coverage to work WP:LISTN. And Dream Focus - It looks like some of your examples above should probably go, too. Sometimes other stuff that does exist shouldn't. Hog Farm Bacon 16:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is. These are far too frequent and numerous to warrant a list. WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS are king here. An overall compilation of statistics would be fine, such as deaths per year, per breed, per country, etc. (doing like this wouldn't even require the attacks to be fatal). Whether that can be done in a main article or warrants a separate article just for the stats, I'll remain agnostic about for now. The individual details surrounding specific attacks are run-of-the-mill news items and don't warrant mention. We also don't (nor should we) compile lists of every person killed by lightning strike, by shark attack, in plane crashes, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Wikipedia is not the news. Clearly breaks WP:IINFO and are not individually notable so have no place in an encyclopaeida. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 16:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The nom's very detailed rationale explains it all. Onel5969 TT me 17:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the lists meet our criteria WP:LISTN the lists are informational. I have much respect for Eddie891, but I have even more respect for the project and for the reader's desire to find this information. The pageviews show that our readers are using this information. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pageviews aren't indicators of what should be kept or not. The page My penis has been deleted many times as thoroughly unencyclopedic content. I bet it'd get great pageviews if it existed, but pageviews aren't a good indicator on if a subject is encyclopedic or not. Hog Farm Bacon 17:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you up to the point where lists are kept based on WP:LISTN criteria: if the lists are informational (readers think so) and referenced, and this one (List of fatal dog attacks in the United States) has 721 references. Also mentioning the My penis page is not even close to this article's content worthiness. Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pageviews ARE an indication of the topic's notability. This article averages over 450 views per day. The "top level article" Fatal dog attacks averages just 37 pageviews/day. Dog bite averages 183 pageviews/day. So the readers aren't coming here because they sought out "fatal dog attacks" or "dog bite" and clicked a link to see USA fatalities. They're coming from somewhere else. And considering the length of the article's title, and the esoteric nature of the subject (as opposed to the ubiquitous "my penis"), the reader must be wanting fatalities in particular. And they must be doing that because the subject is notable enough to seek out further information on the topic. Just because a handful of Wikipedia editors can't pinpoint enough Wikipedia-grade RSes on the spot to satisfy some editors, doesn't mean the topic isn't notable. And the pageviews are a definite indicator of general notability of the topic. Normal Op (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, history: There are also List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom and Fatal dog attacks in Canada. In the spring of 2019 there was a lengthy discussion that resulted in the decision to peel out the "studies" from the page Fatal dog attacks in the United States (as it was named then) to a separate page that would be international in scope but separate from the list of fatalities. No one did that, so a few months later I created the page Fatal dog attacks (first version) and included in it some international fatalities (and links to the USA, UK and Canada pages). Someone later removed the list of international fatalities from that page [1] (without discussion) and I haven't gotten around to making an international List of fatal dog attacks page to put that content into. Normal Op (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, perhaps an RfC. These are all ultimately spinoffs from Dog bite which no one is seriously suggesting shouldn’t exist. As such they are simply examples of fatal dog attacks, some of which (Dianne Whipple comes to mind) are certainly notable. The issue has undoubtedly been covered by groups advocating for and against certain breeds being outlawed in some regard. I’m guessing the actuarial industry would have some interesting statistics to help as well.
    Personally I also wonder if the past years might benefit from at least introductory prose detailing how that year’s cases compare to previous years. As well it may make sense to convert all past years into prose rather than charts.
    An RfC might be called for taking input from this AfD to discuss the best ways to organize this content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I also completely agree with the nomination statement. In addition to the issues already provided in the nomination statement, my other concern with this page (with respect to the page's compliance to accuracy/reliability standards for Wikipedia) is that it lists the suspected breed(s) of the dogs involved in the incidents. There are numerous studies that have concluded that breed information (without DNA) is subject to high rates of inaccuracy -- on average between 40%-60%. This study [1] determined that breed information in media reports differed from breed determination by animal control agencies up to 40% of the time. Another study [2] determined that visual identification techniques for some breeds differed from actual DNA results up to 60% of the time. Essentially, the problem with listing breeds is that there is a high probability that either the shelter and/or the owner have not correctly identified the specific breed of their dog -- which then leads to inaccurate information in media reports as almost all media reports on dog bites simply identify the breed as reported by the owner/shelter (which again is likely to differ from the dog's actual DNA around 50% of the time, per cited studies). Therefore, I would have more support for this page if the "Category of Dog" column were removed as the information in this column is not reliable -- and worse, has been the subject of a lot of controversy, disagreements, and problems on this page (at least, as I've observed over the last several years of watching this page). However, even if the "Category of Dog" column were removed, I still find that this page is not aligned with the type of content that is appropriate and expected for Wikipedia. Thanks for considering my comments and feedback, Michael. Michael2468b (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC) — Michael2468b (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Adding several more studies on the accuracy of breed identification: This study [3] determined that accurate breed identification varied between 10.4%-67.7% (depending on the number of breeds identified in the dog's DNA); this study [4] determined that DNA results matched visual breed identification only around 25% of the time. Regardless, as mentioned above, there is a lot of evidence to support that breed information is prone to high rates of inaccuracy without DNA; therefore, removing the "Category of Dog" column would actually improve this page's accuracy (by eliminating questionable/debatable/inaccurate data from it). However, as mentioned in my first comment above, even if breed data was removed from this page, I would still support its deletion for the reasons outlined in the nomination statement.Michael2468b (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC) — Michael2468b (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sources

  1. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24299544/
  2. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109002331500310X
  3. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107223/
  4. ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10888700902956151
  • Those are reasons to clarify for our readers at the top of the list that listing of breeds has been shown to be a highly imprecise science, but not a reason to delete the whole list. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But saying I would still support its deletion for the reasons outlined in the nomination statement is essentially a ‘per nom’ !vote, which is a reason for deletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, my vote is still in support of deletion regardless of the breed accuracy issue. If the final conclusion is to retain this article, I would like to start a separate discussion about the removal of the "Category of Dogs" from the page (and the other similar pages) as it's unreliable and worse, encourages changes to this page by those with personal agendas (either for or against certain "breeds") which only serves to diminish the value of the page. In fact, I use this page frequently in my class as an example of how inaccurate/unverified data is unfortunately published on Wikipedia (with the objective of teaching my students to apply critical analysis to test the validity of information they find on the internet; and for this page, students almost unanimously agree that the breed information does not meet scientific standards to be valid/true). With respect to the tagging that I have "made few or no other edits outside this topic" -- that's true but irrelevant, I use this page for various class projects and just because I don't contribute much doesn't mean that I have less of an interest or impact on this page.Michael2468b (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - In response to the offered rationales for deletion:
  1. The WP:IINFO rationale for deletion (RfD) has been argued in previous AfD attempts. The consensus has been that notability derives from the topic itself, i.e., "Fatal Dog Attacks" that meet WP:Notability because (per WP:LISTN), "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The fact that the non-notable individuals were killed does not decrease the topic's notability.
  2. The WP:NOTMEMORIAL RfD has also been argued in previous AfD attempts. The consensus has been that this does not apply because the names themselves are not the point - they are included for completeness in describing the event, and to assist readers if they wish to explore for additional information beyond the sources cited in the entry.
  3. The WP:BLP RfD is not supported because the only "personal" information is generally the individual's name, the city or town where the event occurred, and some discussion of the event as presented in WP:RELIABLE SOURCES - usually local news media. Edit an entry if you feel it violates the WP:BLP WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:NOR criteria rather than deleting the entire article.
  4. Skipped in the argument for deletion.
  5. The WP:NOTNEWS RfD is not supported because 1) the article does not contain "routine" news reporting - "dog bites man" is routine, but "dog kills man" is a rare event can generate multiple news stories over several days, including analysis of dog & human interaction, as well as intense, emotional commentary; 2) the article is not a "news story" about one event or multiple events - as stated earlier, it is a stand-alone list of events under a notable topic.
  6. The WP:LISTN RfD is not supported because per WP:LISTN, "the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". It is the topic of "Fatal Dog Attacks" rather than the individual people that qualify the list as "notable." A stand-alone list related to a notable topic conforms with WP:LISTN.
  7. The WP:RECENTISM RfD is not supported because the topic of fatal dog attacks is demonstrably an item of enduring interest, rather than a singular recent event.
  8. The WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS RfD is not supported because the list acknowledges that its geographic restriction ("in the United States") and that it is incomplete. When you find a list that claims to be "all fatal dog attacks from all history and all the world" then feel free to tilt at it. This list is not that list. Astro$01 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as long as referenced, is an often-looked up and discussed topic. Is referenced. Dog fatalities is a notable topic. It is not an indisciriminate list, but rather a well-defined one whose elements must have (and indeed do) sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTIINFO WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate memorial for victims of a specific death, especially as almost every victim is non notable, including infant children (some not even named), and referenced by a single news report. Delete reasons remain the same for the last nomination. Ajf773 (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Astro$01. Well referenced and notable subject of enduring interest. Makes no claim to be complete, it is a select list as determined by editorial decision making process. -- GreenC 01:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There were two prior AfDs for this article. The article has had multiple name changes which have splintered the Talk page archives and (almost) lost the prior AfDs.
— Normal Op (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Put those at the top of the AFD in the box on the right already. Dream Focus 04:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep ALL: This list article is well-sourced, meets WP:GNG, is informative, has good criteria for inclusion. These list-articles are part of a set and are neither a content fork nor duplicated content. Originally the list was part of the fatal dog attack article until it became big enough to require it to split. The list entries are well cited and there has been very little problem with bias or edit wars. This list (and there are many lists similar to it) is not intended as a memorial to people, but as a document showing the history of fatal dog attacks over time, and give a brief summary on how the event happened, and sometimes includes what happened because of a particular attack (legislation, or a conviction, etc.). Anyone thinking such a list as this is a memorial should clear up their misunderstanding of the word "memorial". Memorials would be focused on either one person, or a group of people dying in the same event. Chronological lists or collections of deaths by similar manner are NOT memorials to the various and unconnected people who died that way, but are bodies of information of interest to those researching a topic by manner of death, which is one function of an encyclopedia. The people's names are only of interest to search for further information or citations for a particular death. The oft-cited policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances. LISTN isn't an issue because the subject "fatal dog attacks" and "fatal dogs attacks in the US" have been well covered in media, studies and books. These lists are not memorials, they are events. RECENTISM is so far from an issue that I can't even believe it was brought up. Normal Op (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alerting the following editors who either have high edits in the last year or who edited one of these list-articles recently, and who have not yet voted: 45382B3, Matthew stebbins, Jacobm co, Rosebud0214, Mickey912. Normal Op (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some things I think it's worth clarifying. 1) Yes it is a violation of WP:IINFO. Several keep !voters have harped on the fact that it isn't in-discriminant because has clear inclusion standards. That's wrong. reported by the news media, published in scholarly papers, or mentioned through other sources. is not a standard of inclusion, it is just a rephrasing of WP:V. Of course a fatal dog attack would have to be mentioned in a source to be here. There is no threshold of inclusion other than it being verifiable, which is already our policy (see WP:NOR as well). Note that indiscriminate says merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, which is the case here and brings me to point 2) WP:NOTNEWS absolutely applies to this list. Particularly points 2 and 3, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.. 3) in the same vein, WP:LISTN is not met because nowhere is the actual list of fatal attacks (chronicling individual events) discussed. These three points are at the heart of why this list should be deleted. Nobody is saying that "fatal dog attacks" or even "fatal dog attacks in the United States" is a non-notable topic, but that the "list of fatal dog attacks in the United States" should be deleted, something that has not adequately been addressed in keep !votes, imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Absolutely YES this sort of list has been discussed and/or covered in multiple sources over time, however a particular POV-pushing editor has campaigned to strip all mention of these from Wikipedia, so you won't find them in mainspace but might find them in archived talk page and noticeboard discussions. Medical studies aren't going to mention individual victims by name, but they do occasionally list several fatal events together for a discussion and sometimes you can cross reference their stories to actual cases with names (such as this case study report). Here are several lists mentioning either people by name or listing the fatalities without names (and providing links where you can find the names):
— Normal Op (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you're linking exclusively to anti-pitbull advocacy websites as your reliable sources ... doesn't instill confidence that someone else is POV-pushing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first four links cover ALL fatalities regardless of breed — just like this wiki article does. That the final three links focus on pit bulls probably results from the fact (supported by dozens of medical studies) that pit bulls have been involved in the majority of the fatalities. [2] So your inference fails, Rhododendrites, and perhaps you have been swayed by the same POV-pushing editor over time to think that those organizations are "anti-pitbull". The nominator suggested that such lists of fatal dog attack events has not been discussed or covered elsewhere, I have provided links showing that they have been discussed by multiple sources over a significant period of time. Normal Op (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And nom didn't ask for "reliable sources", by the way, and I'm not advocating the use of any of these sources as a citation in mainspace; but the fact remains that this sort of list HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE discussed and published. And THAT was my point. Normal Op (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Well, I kinda assumed it went without saying that we would use reliable sources when establishing notability/lack thereof. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying they aren't reliable sources, I was catering to Rhod's accusation that I was presenting such. Normal Op (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, fair enough, but if you know they're unreliable[see below], why are you presenting them here to support an argument at AfD, where only reliable sources are relevant? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying they aren't reliable sources. Normal Op (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I misread your previous comment as "I'm not saying they're reliable", so struck that. I'm still confused, though, by And nom didn't ask for "reliable sources". Unreliable sources are irrelevant for establishing notability. So any call for sources is implicitly a call for reliable sources. Either those sources are unreliable and have no place here or you're presenting them as reliable. If you're — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This one is a medical examiner. That's a reliable source. [3]
  2. This one is an attorney who is an expert in his field. That's a reliable source. [4]
  3. This one has been recording dog bite related fatalities for fifteen years and every single publication is well-cited to other sources. That's a reliable source. [5]

That's three; that should do it. Normal Op (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no... the "Dog Bite King"'s self-published legal site, Dog Bite Law, is not a reliable source. (??) The dogsbite.org statistics would just be statistics even if they weren't published by an advocacy group. Statistics don't help notability. The first one, however, is indeed a reliable source. Not because it's from a medical examiner, but because it's a peer reviewed journal article. ... But it doesn't mention any of these cases. Its research seems like it might be useful for a fatal dog attacks topic article, but it doesn't help this list. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that these are sources worth considering by someone with more than a few hundred edits is making me doubt myself. This is very much not an area about which I have a lot of knowledge. Accordingly, I've opened a thread at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dogsbite.org%2C_other_dog_attack-related_advocacy_websites. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This gish gallop of yours is exhausting, and unnecessary. Kenneth Phillips is a well respected attorney and a subject-matter expert. Here is one write-up about him in the Washington Post: [6] (free account signup required). Normal Op (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the reliability I’m still not convinced that the list of non notable events is merited on Wikipedia. just because something is verifiable doesn’t mean it’s suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. Of course advocacy groups and (perhaps) subject matter experts write about the areas they are involved in... its what they do. It concerns me wrt notability that the only sourcing outside of this is news reports and case studies (ie ‘pitbull maulings in Detroit’) that aren’t, to me, indicative of the significance of the wider list. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Here are 5 news reports and 2 studies that discuss "lists of fatal dog attacks". [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Normal Op (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort you have put in to finding sourcing, but it seems to me that you have presented more of the same coverage. The journal articles seem to go towards establishing the notability of statistics, not listing individual events. The other articles, three of which are from the same source (citywatch LA -- which seems to be a non notable news site that is more advocacy than news), are all local publications covering news. I just don't see a wider notability of the extensive list we have here established. I'll add that there seems to be a slightly emerging consensus at RSN that sources like dogsbite.org are not very reliable. Anyways, I'm probably sounding like a broken record here, so that might be it from me. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't happen to be able to cite any "actual research", would you? By this argument, we should delete every Wikipedia page devoted to individual dog breeds, because it's just "complete nonsense" that anyone can claim they can tell the difference between a Great Dane, a German Shepherd, a Golden Retriever, and a Chihuahua. Astro$01 (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going off this thread, where various studies were posted and discussed. On closer inspection, I see I've misreported what was in the sources. News reports of dog attacks are not "more likely than not" to be wrong, they're just very likely to be wrong. And you seem to misunderstand me. I'm not talking about discussions of dog breeds in general, just about misidentification of dog breeds in news reports of dog attacks. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only source on that rather soap-boxy page that pointed to an actual refereed journal (Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association) was Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States, which said:
"On the basis of the expanded definition (any agreement between alleged breeds and mixes), breed descriptors among media reports were discordant for 19 of 148 (12.8%) dogs; animal control or local law enforcement assessment of breed differed from the media account for 18 of 129 (14.0%) dogs."
So, there was agreement on sources from 86% to 87% of the time. I'm having a hard time understanding how that level of agreement makes news media "very likely to be wrong" when 86% to 87% agreement would normally indicate that the reports are very likely to be right. I suggest that if there are conflicts in the reporting that you can always go look for more sources and add information from other sources to the list, e.g., "media reports the dog was either a St. Bernard or a Chihuahua", rather than deleting the entire list. Astro$01 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The media reports are NOT inherently wrong about dog breed reporting. Dog show judges every day identify dog breeds quite easily. Most people know what kind of dog they have. Media reports dog breed based off of what was in the police blotter. The police get it from (a) what the owner said it was, (b) what their eyes told them it was, or (c) what Animal Control said it was when the dog was confiscated. Judges have ruled in numerous cases that an ordinary person can identify a pit bull and most people know when they own a pit bull. The ONLY people in the United States who are objecting to breed identification are (i) the pro-pit bull people & lobby (because it's their dogs who are doing the majority of attacks), and (ii) the No Kill people who don't want to put down the dogs swamping their shelters. Most pit bull dog owners KNOW their dog is a pit bull and have no problem bragging about it (https://themajorityproject.com/), and the dog only become "unidentifiable" when the dog attacks someone or a landlord says "no pit bulls". Even though many fatal attacks are by "German Shepherd" or "St Bernard", you don't see the German Shepherd or St Bernard people participating in this farsical study-building exercise to "prove" you can't tell a German Shepherd without DNA. Any large hairy black and tan dog WILL get labelled a GS, but the GS people aren't complaining. Only the pit bull people. This paradox is the smoking gun about WHO is promoting the agenda of "you can't identify a breed without DNA" while people have been doing that for centuries without any problem. The "science" is funded by pro-pit bull and No Kill advocates and is proven as fraudulent EVERY SINGLE TIME you look at the details of these studies. Normal Op (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Astro$01:I don’t think anyone is mistaking Chihuahuas for Bulldogs or Dachshunds for German Shepherds. The challenge is with specific unique breeds within breed types/groups - for example, accurate visual identification for specific breeds within the diverse bully-type (bulldog-type) breed group such as the various pit bull type breeds and other similar breeds and mixes such as Dogo Argentino, American Bulldog, Cane Corso, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, and many others. And unsurprisingly (per studies) there is a higher level of agreement/accuracy for purebred dogs than for mixed breed dogs. However, accuracy declines when attempting to identify the difference between, for example, an American Staffordshire Terrier mix and an Dogo Argentino mix or an American Bulldog mix and a Cane Corso mix. These are just a few examples, there are many breeds in the broad bully-type category that have similar physical characteristics that unless they are purebred, are harder to accurately identify their predominant breed and secondary breed(s) without DNA. Not an argument, just a clarifying point with respect to misidentifying dog breeds. Also, the "Co-occurrence" report is not a DNA study, it's admittedly a study on the discrepancies between media reports and animal control based only on assumed breed by visual breed identification (not DNA) -- which are discrepancies that are still important to study, but it's not a study on visual breed ID vs actual DNA.Michael2468b (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is any of this relevant to the discussion of deleting the article? Even if the dog breed was unquestionably, provably, definitively misidentified in every single source across the entire article that wouldn't be a reason to delete the article; we would just fix or remove the breed information, the same as any other incorrect information on any other article. The entire issue seems like an irrelevant tangent. Paisarepa 18:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paisarepa:I agree; the breed data discussion is off-topic and has become overly tangential from the original AfD nomination statement/reason.Michael2468b (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all based off of non-RSes and WP:NOTMEMORIAL/WP:NOTNEWS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I was asked to chime in (vote) on this AFD discussion but I will abstain since I'm not an expert on the policies or rules that govern deletions. However, I'll point out that per WP:AFD: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.. So as I understand this one part of the Wiki deletion policy, the outcome of this AFD nomination should be based on Wiki policy and less on total votes. Thanks, Jacobm co (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and WP:NOTNEWS. Atsme Talk 📧 01:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     – This is the correct venue now that AfD has been reopened.
    The article/list needs to be deleted based on the delete arguments, and hopefully I can better explain the importance of that happening for the sake of accuracy. In these types of lists, we cannot possibly correct potential inaccuracies and it is highly likely there are many. These lists serve as validation for the no-pit-bull advocacies and it helps them pass controversial laws when an encyclopedia like ours publishes such lists under the pretense they are well sourced and dog IDs are accurate. WP should not put itself in this position per WP:NOTADVOCACY. I was hoping we didn't have to discuss the controversy itself, but more editors need to be aware of what is going on so they can better understand why accuracy is important in these types of lists. From my perspective, it should not even be up for debate considering the widespread misidentification of dogs and the deliberate attempts to destroy any dog that even looks like it might be a descendant or a mix of the hated breed as evidenced by the article in AAHA, along with many other articles of importance to this issue, including AVMA, Veterinary Journal, NCRC, ASPCA, Vetmed, NBC, NatGeo, Animal Fdtn and on and on. Atsme Talk 📧 15:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NCRC and AFF are pro-pit bull lobbying organizations dedicated, and your own (currently undisclosed) COI on this subject should preclude you from contributing on this subject. Normal Op (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You were just warned by Nosebagbear about slipping back into past behavior that resulted in your indef t-ban from dog/canine topics, and yet, here you are continuing to bludgeon your opposition, but worse, you just made a false accusations of a COI against me. That is unacceptable. Atsme Talk 📧 21:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Normal Op, unlike many here (including both you and I), Atsme does disclose her identity and most aspects of her professional life, if you are aware of some COI you should present it to WP:COIN, if not you are simply slandering for no purpose than presumably to sway opinion, it could be argued that such actions are a form of WP:Harassment. Cavalryman (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete - a few thoughts. First, how is this different from List of hazing deaths in the United States or List of deaths on eight-thousanders? There is a volume difference, we have about 40 deaths by dog attack in the US per year. At some point, the volume is too much. A List of Maltese people that contained all 500000 Maltese residents would be ridiculous, even though the topic of Maltese people is clearly notable. List of Maltese people correctly contains only blue-linked articles -- most of the entries here would have no possibility of being stand-alone articles. The guidance at WP:CSC says that if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list. At 40 entries per year for one country, this is just too much detail. That said, I don't feel that NOTNEWS or IINFO applies here; perhaps an RFC to add a criteria to WP:NOT would be informative. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did the math, and it would require (500,000/40 =) 12,500 years for the number of US dog attacks to match the current Maltese population, assuming they remain constant. I just thought that was amusing. Mariolovr (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States has thousands of entries -- so many that the linked article is just an index of the actual lists, which are by month. Volume shouldn't be a deciding factor between keep or delete. Likewise the overwhelming majority of entries are not individually notable, again not a reason to delete. Paisarepa 03:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The underlying concept is not notable; sourcing is dubious and the article comes down to collection of news and memorials. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just as a note, since I see that an awful lot of time/energy has gone into compiling these lists. Has anyone considered exporting this content to a different wiki? Wikia, for example. There's a lot of good content on those kinds of sites that doesn't quite fit on Wikipedia (for better or worse, I guess). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We have the article fatal dog attacks, any independently notable fatalities can be linked there. Cavalryman (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Individual fatality events (which are cited, as all of these are) won't need to establish notability if they are included in an article that satisfies its own notability. In fact, that's where this list started out before the article was split apart, and then someone named Fatal dog attacks in the United States to LIST OF... Long game, perhaps? Normal Op (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you suggesting? Speak plainly. Cavalryman (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
[14] [15] Normal Op (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you have something to say just say it. Are you suggesting that I have somehow orchestrated this AfD because my opinion has not changed since the last AfD? You have recently been given some gentle reminders to AGF and to slow down in this topic area [16][17]. Cavalryman (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I closed this AfD as "no consensus"; however several editors have reminded me I !voted "keep" in a previous AfD (which I forgot about) which would give the appearance of having a conflict of interest, so I am re-opening the debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per NOTNEWS; appears to be mainly a list of local news reports. We have fatal dog attacks which is where the necessary encyclopedic coverage of this topic should be.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the biggest problem I see with this kind list is that breeds are identified and, as brought up above, this is a problematic issue that has real-world consequences. If the list stays, that section should be removed, even if it's exported to another Wiki, as Rhododendrites suggests. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per above. Oeoi (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's hard to see lists like these as anything other than a memorial for non-notable humans. Those names add nothing to the understanding of the topic of fatal dog attacks on humans. If there is scientific data on rate of attacks and factors that affect the risks to be garnered from it, I would expect the academics to do it, which we can then add to the main article. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the nom. Fails WP:IINFO, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and has serious WP:BLP issues. A set of incomplete lists from local sources of random people killed by dogs in one country is hardly the purpose of Wikipedia, and as the nom hinted at, where does this end? If truly a notable collection of data, why not a list of fatal dog attacks in the first century of the Roman Empire? Or in 1950's Thailand? Wikipedia should not be listing the names and personal details of random people who were victims of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL tragedies so people can gawk at these blood soaked local events, which is the only reason for this article that I can tell. Aside from gawking, what is the lasting notability reason for having an article dedicated to including as many entries such as this real one: "Demi Witherspoon; 2 years; pit bull; The family dog bit the child's face completely off." The article Fatal dog attacks is enough. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a particular list item that could be improved, then I suggest improving it rather than deleting the entire list. As it happens, fatal dog attacks are not WP:RUNOFTHEMILL but are relatively rare events. There are all sorts of articles that are lists of "Lists of fatal [cause] attacks...", and this is just one of them. As to "Why", it was split off of the Fatal dog attacks article specifically to preserve instances that were originally included in the parent article as the list was growing too long. The idea is to help people who want to do further research on this topic once they read the main article, so the stand-alone list shows an incomplete list (inviting new items) and provides a link for anyone who want to know more about a particular event. BTW, if you find lists of dog attacks in the Roman Empire, or in 1950's Thailand, feel free to tilt at them. Those lists are not this list. Astro$01 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience the problem with spin off lists like this is that they become dumps for anything only slightly notable having to do with the topic and they aren't maintained at all because most people don't visit them from the main article. Except for people who are just there to gawk and therefore won't cleanup super hyperbolic entries like the one Newshunter12 cited. Also, according to the CDC there are 16 fatal dogs attacks in the US per year. While that might seem small, it isn't when this article is just about "fatal dog attacks in the US." Especially considering there is no inclusion criteria besides being killed by a dog. All you would have do is list two or three years worth of people that have been killed by dogs in the United States and the list would become impossible to navigate and extremely useless. The alternative would be to list only "notable fatal dog attacks" (whatever that means in this context) to keep the number and usefulness down, but then no one is going to review it regularly make sure whatever arbitrary standard you come up with is being followed and then it would just as easily be manageable enough for the main article anyway. Where people will actually police it and delete the sensationalism. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point to a degree, but I have to point out that this article has 14,000 page views in the past 30 days, while fatal dog attacks has only 1,100. It appears that this is the main article, though not the primary topic. Alleging that people are just there to gawk is an unfair assessment to make without evidence, as is the allegation that the article is an unmaintained dump. Nor are either of those allegations material to the question of notability and therefore deletion. Sure, there are issues with questionable breed identification and perhaps with hyperbole, but those failures fall on the sources and should be dealt with by finding consensus on the talk page and then improving the article. It would be OR and SYNTH for an editor to assume the source is wrong and 'correct it' in this article or any other. Finally, every list has criteria and being killed by a dog (in the USA, post-2000 post-2009) is the criteria for this list. That every event that meets that criteria can be included isn't evidence that it's indiscriminate; that's how lists work, things that meet the inclusion criteria are included. Paisarepa 02:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such statements as "bit the child's face completely off" are NOT hyperbolic, Newshunter12, they are unfortunately reality. The dispatchers said that in clear voice [18]. It's NOT the first time a dog ate off a face in an attack [19]. And if such statements were hyperbolic, they would have been corrected by another editor. There are 82 page watchers [20] and when information gets posted wrong, it is corrected — usually within minutes if not hours, and sometimes played down. I have probably reviewed every single edit made on this page since I joined Wikipedia two years ago. I'm pretty sure there are a few people who also review all edits on a regular basis. This page was created 11 years ago as a list of fatal dog attacks (US). It's been edited regularly, and reviewed regularly. The Fatal dog attacks page is about a year old and doesn't have the same number of followers... or interest. There is a finite list of "known" dog bite fatalities each year. So this page has never been, and probably never will be, a dumping ground. "Poor content" is not a valid reason to delete a page; it's a reason to correct a page. And if it hasn't been corrected on THIS page, then you can pretty much know that the information is correct (or very close) because of the high number of people monitoring the edits. The argument that has been presented about the dog breeds being wrong, is also bunk, because each entry is corrected if it's wrong. The rules on the page have been "whatever secondary source says the breed is, that's what is used here." That's paraphrased; the actual rule is on the Talk page in the pink section. — Normal Op (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the concern is that the list covers too many years (however one decides what the right number is), the simplest response is to split off a sub-list with the appropriate number of years, e.g., a "2010 - 2019" list. This would be consistent with past practice and leave the main list covering 2020 onwards, rather than deleting the entire list and all current sub-lists.Astro$01 (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Well sourced and informative article. Meets WP:GNG and in my view is suitable under WP:LISTN. — Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All. Why delete such a well-sourced list? None of these events might warrant their own separate article but media coverage means they are notable to be covered in this manner. Also, the fact that certain dog breeds come up quite often here just means that they happen to attack a lot of people. As stated above by Normal Op, this kind of list has been covered by multiple sources over time and them being biased is irrelevant. StellarHalo (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2020 (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/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States&oldid=1073183607"