Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (3rd nomination)

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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for the deletion of this article, and a reasonable argument by those opposed to deletion that the subject meets WP:LISTN. Concerns about the presentation of this list might be resolved by the proposal made in the discussion to move this article to Fatal dog attacks in the United States, and shift the focus from the mere list to the general phenomenon. I will file a WP:RM proposal after completing this closure. BD2412 T 02:04, 21 April 2024 (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 | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS many of the entries are sourced to dogsbites.org which isn't a reliable source (see:[1]) and I've noticed a few entries were not supported by source. This list is near impossible to maintain and review and has little encyclopaedic value. List of fatal dog attacks already exists and it will be easier to manage all the verifiability issues with a single list Traumnovelle (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add onto why this list should be removed in just the 2024 section I've had to rewrite 7/10 breed descriptions due to not being verified with the sources given. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And i will have to rewritte like 99% of the deaths because somebody removed alot of them. For exaple, 2021 has only 3 fatalities now! CComp542Version372 (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised the user above is a likely WP:SPA of User:CComp542Veraion19. Conyo14 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How'd you know? CComp542Veraion19 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — CComp542Veraion19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Intuition ;) Conyo14 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The project-space pages cited in the nomination mainly refer to article content and editorial decisions made therein. We should be assessing this from the notability standpoint, particularly using WP:NLIST; are there independent reliable sources available that cover these list entries as a group or set? Left guide (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this comment. I want to add that most of the entries with no reliable source where made by one user that started to edit a month ago. I kept an eye on it because I thought it might be "clever vandalism" to discredit this list. But then I thought maybe this person is new, so I did not intervene. And since it was mostly done one section it was easy to keep an eye on. Furthermore I think most of this cases can be co firmed by a reliable primary source, they are most likely not made up. Those entries should be improved not removed. Wikigrund (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has nothing to do with systemic bias as far as I can tell? Having a list of content related to one country doesn't mean it's systemic bias, we have tons of per-country lists. The second article you mentioned is not a list, so saying we currently have two articles on this topic isn't true.
    Content problems can be solved - if there are problem entries, remove them. The only grounds here to delete that have any standing would be indiscriminate, which I don't think this is, the topic of the list is notable - there seem to be sources that cover "fatal dog attacks in America" and list them, though with less detail. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "many entries are sourced to dogsbites.org" does not seem to be true. There's a few that are, but it's not "many". Just remove those or find alternative sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's over 65 entires that are cited to dogsbite.org, that's a substantial portion of the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I count 7 citations to dogsbite.org, plus the pre-2016 section. The rest of it seems fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The pre-2016 section is still part of the article and a large portion of it. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call it a large portion, 2020+2021 individually outsize it. It's also badly constructed (for some reason in reverse order? formatted quite differently for the rest of the page? arbitrarily starts at 2005?) If this is kept just remove it and start over IMO PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And which specific sources cover "fatal dog attacks in America" as a group or set as required by WP:NLIST criteria? Left guide (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it depends on what you count as "as a set"? I feel like the NLIST guideline is vague on that. There are yearly listings of how many people died in dog attacks, counting breeds and often recounting specific high profile incidents, and studies of sets of fatal dog attacks over specific periods of time. I don't think we really need the victim details/news here maybe, so this could be cut down.
    I was more bothered by the rationale used. If this is deleted the parent list should also go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to the parent list going either as all the same issues apply really, but I want to see what the overall consensus is this time around for the list. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think some sort of listing is probably warranted but the only quality the sources focus on seems to be breed - idk, maybe cut down to age/sex/dog breed/amount of dog instead of the news-style listings (the details of the case are not usually focused on)
    Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 - focuses on items from this period as a set (i think), breed information, that stuff
    Traumatic deaths from dog attacks in the United States - similar to the above
    non american ones (for broader list)
    Fatal dog attacks in Spain under a breed-specific legislation: A ten-year retrospective study
    Bitten or struck by dog: A rising number of fatalities in Europe, 1995–2016
    I feel like the news-type details should probably be cut down but some of the statistics here are probably worth keeping. Could be merged into something else though I guess? IDK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that breed identification has been demonstrated to be typically unreliable: [2] [3] [4] [5] I'm not sure that having breed data would be useful, out of the 10 articles in 2024 I had to modify 7 due to the breeds listed being unverified/original research and that's before getting into the unreliability of breed identification and that most news articles won't specify whether the breed was identified via registration, dna testing, or by visual identification. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about that. Your very first source there has Gary Patronek as a lead author, and he is affiliated with the National Canine Research Council, [6] a group that primarily exists to lobby for pitbulls. And given that 40% (if I recall correctly) of dogs that attack are previously known to the victims, it seems likely that they know what kind of a dog it is. Regardless, breed does correlate with attack severity, with pitbulls causing the greatest injury, and this is documented in medical journals [7], activist papers in veterinary journals don't make that go away. Geogene (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point of mentioning pit bulls? We're discussing whether breed identification is reliable. You call it an activist paper but their methodology is listed and the paper was peer reviewed, it's not invalid because the author has an affiliation with a group. There are still 3 other studies listed. Here's another source pointing out the same thing: [8]. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead author of that paper, Victoria L. Voith, is, not surprisingly, also affiliated with the National Canine Research Council. [9] Perhaps you will see the pattern now? Geogene (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being affiliated with the group doesn't make the study unreliable. Do all the studies have affiliations with that group or just those three? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being affiliated with this group indicates a certain bias toward whether or not the breed of vicious dogs is identifiable. That's a good reason to throw out your sources. And you haven't breathed a word about my source that says breed does correlate with attack severity -- and by implication that breed is determinable after an attack. Geogene (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the paper has a proper methodology and is peer reviewed it's conclusions can be accepted. An author may have a bias but the results will speak on their own.
    I only read the free preview for that study but it doesn't appear to even address the idea that breed identification may be unreliable so using it to conclude that breed identification is reliable is quite close to WP:SYNTH Traumnovelle (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly--it's a more recent and higher quality paper that doesn't even acknowledge the NCRC's position that breed identification might not be reliable. That's evidence that the "you can't identify breed" viewpoint clearly does not represent any kind of scientific consensus, and should probably be ignored. That has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH, by the way. No idea where you are getting this stuff from. Geogene (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The study isn't addressing the idea of if breed identification is reliable nor even mentioning it. It's a conclusion not mentioned in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it doesn't address that. Because nobody claims that breed identification is unreliable, except for a very specific small group of veterinarians affiliated with a very specific lobbying group. Geogene (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This study from 1965, whilst not about breed identification notes that mixed-breed dogs (which happen to make up a decent portion of the US dog population) look vastly different [10].
    There's also the other two studies which you haven't shown a link to said group.
    A bias with the authors doesn't render a study invalid anyhow, they must still adhere to standards and the study is peer reviewed. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those yearly listings might be a good start, are you able to bring them into this discussion? I don't have the time or inclination to wade through the 250+ references in the article, but I'd be willing to look at WP:THREE. Left guide (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a mistake, meant to link the existing list. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all the grounds given for deleting here apply to that as well, so if we delete this that should probably go as well. It is not systemic bias to have a list only applying to one country. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Animal, Events, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reasons listed for deletion are insufficient. Cortador (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And your keep rationale is insufficient. If you think there are fundamental problems with the nomination, you should explain why. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of fatal dog attacks. The nom describe my rationale perfectly, but mainly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The population of the US is not dependent on the per capita regional fatalities of dogs in other countries. Conyo14 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That list should be deleted as well, for the same reasons as this one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that notion per reputable sources such as [11], [12], and [13]. Notable topic, just indiscriminate to have one country favored over others. Conyo14 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, primarily per WP:NOTNEWS. While the overall topic of dog attacks is certainly notable, a comprehensive (or not-so comprehensive even) list of every single one of them isn't. These are run of the mill news stories, however tragic. We also don't keep lists on every single other type of insert-unusual-cause-of-death, per WP:NOT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit the list topic is notable, but you still want to delete the page? Geogene (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In response to the stated Rationales for Deletion (RfDs)
- The WP:INDISCRIMINATE RfD is not supported because the discussion at the top of the list puts the list items in context with explanations referenced to independent sources, which are citations [1] - [4], consistent with the criteria in the description of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
- The article's introductory discussion also addresses a potential WP:NLIST RfD because "the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", which are citations [1] - [4], and a stand-alone list related to a notable topic conforms with WP:LISTN. It is the topic of "Fatal Dog Attacks" rather than the individual incidents that qualify the list as "notable."
- The WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS RfD is not supported because the list acknowledges that its geographic restriction ("in the United States") and that it is incomplete, rather than being, for example, "list of dog attacks" that only lists attacks in the United States.
- 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.
- 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, rather, it is a stand-alone list of events under a notable topic.
There are certainly issues with some of the list items, e.g., the use of unreliable sources, but it seems to me those can be addressed individually by marking them for further editing and improvement rather than by deleting the entire list of otherwise reliably sourced information. Astro$01 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is, in my view, is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTNEWS. Just because there's some sourced information for the topic "fatal dog attacks in the United States", does not mean the bulk of the list is not INDISCRIMINATE (or that it meats WP:LISTN). Most of the article's sources are routine local articles that simply report "Local person dies of dog attack". which unfortunately isn't that rare of an event. And while such events can includ[e] analysis of dog & human interaction, that isn't the case in the vast majority of the given sources here. This is also pretty much the same reasons why the 2014 article was deleted. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the FIFTH AfD. The talk page lists three, but there was one in 2014, so this is the fifth. Unless there are some totally new arguments, it is frivolous and a waste of our time. Even worse, there is no discussion on the talk page, not even a notice there. We need a speedy close. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not rationale, this is a mix of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:BUREAUCRACY. Would you like to repeat your rationale from the prior listings? Conyo14 (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous AfDs had no consensus so bringing up a new one is perfectly acceptable. Speedy keep does not apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the result of the first RfD was "Keep", but some folks seem unable to accept that so they keep coming back every few years to see if they can finally find a scare up enough votes to kill it. I say, "enough votes" because the arguments for deletion really haven't changed much in 14 years. ```Astro$01 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A RfD from 14 years ago? That is no way grounds for speedy keep. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that your earlier statement, "The previous AFDs had no consensus" was false. There was consensus consensus to keep. Astro$01 (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was consensus to keep 14 years ago, later AfDs had no consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:NLIST , One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. In other words, do sources exist that discuss Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States as a group? Yes, they do, for example, [14], [15], [16] Dog attacks are a perennial subject of scholarly interest, therefore, lists of such incidents are inherently notable by WP guidelines. By the way, just because something is covered by news, does not automatically make it susceptible to a WP:NOTNEWS argument. You may also enjoy similar topics in Wikipedia, like List of fatal crowd crushes, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of fatal shark attacks in the United States, List of fatal snake bites in Australia (note that the "in the United States" or "in Australia" does not indicate systemic bias, either), List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States, List of fatal shark attacks in South Africa, List of deadliest floods, and List of deaths on eight-thousanders. Geogene (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list meets the needed criteria for such lists. This kind of lists do exist for several countries. (Worldwide with separate linked pages for USA, UK, Austria, Germany, Canada, Spain). I do not think it is a good idea to merge them. I think it is better to have individual pages since different countries have different laws and focal points.
For example Austria did have law changes after almost every fatal and also nearly fatal incident. (German version of the page is longer). Also this often was accompanied by week-long public discussions. The impact on society and the federal states is quite interesting.
I started to edit the USA-list because I was reading the cases anyway, so I thought I add the missing ones to Wikipedia. I also made changes and put the states at the beginning to make it sortable or searchable by state.
Although the USA are not my main interrest (I am focused on dog laws, animal welfare and dog bite injuries). This lists help me to search for information or cases I need.
I try to improve the page. In the future I want to add more on the legal part, but since I am not local sometimes I can't access the archives or even the news pages.
I think it is good to keep a short description of each case. At least the state it happened in and information if it was a stray dog, loose dog, family dog and what the legal consequences for the owners were. Or if local laws on keeping animals have been changed due to the fatalities.
I feel some people want this lists deleted because they just don't like it (5th delete request). There seems to be some hyperfocus on the "dog type" category. But since there are a lot of people watching this page it is not too hard to keep the information accurate.
Also I noticed that some users delete sources (which is ok if they are blacklisted or unreliable) but instead of adding a reliable source (that is available), they delete the verifyable content like the "dog type" or they delete the whole entry. I think they are just looking for excuses to delete information. Wikigrund (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 'Fatal dog attacks' is a subject of broad interest which has earned significant historic as well as ongoing news coverage and study. Fatal dog attacks have been a public safety concern for governments and society from the local level to entire countries. The subject itself easily passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:LISTN, and the list entries are well cited with reliable sources.

Despite multiple prior attempts to remove this article, it has remained up since it was created in 2009 precisely because it satisfies the key criteria for a standalone list article in Wikipedia. For example, the closing statement for the first two AfDs, in 2010 and in 2019, declared the subject notable. Topics do not lose their notability status.

Similar collections of fatal dog attack incidents have been compiled and published, and used for the last 40 to 50 years to analyze trends in attacks—e.g., by dog breed or ownership, or by victim age and sex, [17], to propose solutions for public safety or public education, [18] and generally to determine what can be done about the risks [19] of an animal species kept by more than 40% [20] of American households.

The topic is of interest to lawmakers, the insurance industry, the medical establishment, lawyers, landlords, and many other sectors of society—anywhere incidents and trends are tabulated and discussed—and each of these factions has published on the topic.

Wikipedia should reflect, rather than downplay, society's participation in this public interest topic. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here because the article isn't covering a single event. Nor are fatal events "routine" news, despite the increase in fatalities over the years.

There are ongoing debates in the public narrative of whether aggressive behaviors in canines are heritable, i.e., an attribute of a breed, and there have been studies published supporting each side of the debate.

Some editors want to omit breed information that has been reported by reliable sources as if it is "not accurate enough"—per their own original research or point of view on the matter. Wikipedia guidelines do not require such an exceptionally detailed and critical examination of RS data points.

Meanwhile, because the public is interested and in need of good information, the media continues to report on breeds in attack events, allowing researchers to evaluate fatal dog attack data, to include the breeds of dogs involved in their data sets, and to publish their findings. Similarly, there is no reason to omit breed information in this Wikipedia article. Note, however, that the decision to include or exclude breed is a content issue, and not an article deletion matter, and thus is not relevant in the weighing of this AfD.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like previous AFDs, I don't see a consensus here yet. As Geogene points out, it doesn't matter if there are no similar articles for other countries, we have multiple country-specific lists. And I think it is important not to get lost in the weeds and argue about whether or not the breed of dog should be included and verified. What's essential is whether or not this article satisfies WP:NLIST and whether there are sources that establish notability of this subject. Don't get distracted by elements that can be improved through editing and focus on the big picture of whether or not this article is suitable for the project, according to our policies and standards of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Groups of fatal dog attacks, along with serious dog bite injuries, are of specific interest to pediatric trauma surgeons, as shown in the following six medical journal articles; note that providing breed, location, and demographic data is particularly useful.

Life-threatening dog attacks: A devastating combination of penetrating and blunt injuries, Journal of Pediatric Surgery
  • Calkins, Casey M.; Bensard, Denis D.; Partrick, David A.; Karrer, Frederick M. (2001-08-01). "Life-threatening dog attacks: A devastating combination of penetrating and blunt injuries". Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 36 (8): 1115–1117. doi:10.1053/jpsu.2001.25670. PMID 11479838. Retrieved 2024-03-29.
Essig 2019 study, "Dog bite injuries to the face: Is there risk with breed ownership? A systematic review with meta-analysis"
  • Essig, Garth F.; Sheehan, Cameron; Rikhi, Shefali; Elmaraghy, Charles A.; Christophel, J. Jared (2019). "Dog bite injuries to the face: Is there risk with breed ownership? A systematic review with meta-analysis". International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 117: 182–188. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.11.028. ISSN 1872-8464. PMID 30579079.
Golinko's 2016 study, "Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution" Short Reference: [1]
  • Golinko, Michael; Arslanian, Brian; Williams, Joseph (2016-07-10). "Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution". Clinical Pediatrics. 56. doi:10.1177/0009922816657153.
O'Brien et al., 2015 study, "Dog bites of the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment" Short Reference: [2]
  • O'Brien, Daniel C.; Andre, Tyler B.; Robinson, Aaron D.; Squires, Lane D.; Tollefson, Travis T. (2015). "Dog bites of the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment". American Journal of Otolaryngology. 36 (1): 32–38. doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2014.09.001. ISSN 1532-818X. PMID 25311183.
Bini's 2011 study, "Mortality, mauling, and maiming by vicious dogs", Annals of Surgery Short Reference: [3]
Short Reference: [4] Kaye et al.'s 2009 study, "Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries: A 5-Year Review of the Experience at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia"
Veritas Aeterna (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether List of fatal dog attacks is a notable subject, it's whether specifically only the United States deserves rational notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If List of fatal dog attacks is notable, then so is this per WP:SUMMARY (and common sense): "Long stand-alone lists may be split alphanumerically or chronologically or in another way that simplifies maintenance without regard to individual notability of the subsections." -- Jfhutson (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was a similar deletion discussion about List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom in 2021.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom
The result was keep. Wikigrund (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IAW WP:NLIST. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It is a topic of sufficient relevance for encyclopedic scope, not just a random compilation. And the article is very well referenced. Svartner (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being well referenced does not equate to the sources being reliable. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as original research. Besides the fact that this only goes back a few decades, there's any number of questions a historian can throw out this about methodology, completeness, accuracy of sources, bias..... It's also trespassing on WPINDESCRIMINATE for the same reasons. It doesn't matter whether anyone would like us to have this data, because we are not the proper venue. this is something for a research journal. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this page should be deleted. It contributes to misinformation of breeds, which can feed into Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) as well as quantified analysis. Furthermore, it is quite targeted towards breeds of a certain stature/strength as smaller dogs such as Chihuahuas and small terriers are highly unlikely to cause death of an individual, however, score much worse on temperament tests and statistically do cause more injuries to people and other dogs. Any research/statistics should be qualitative and provide a complete statistical representation. This, however, is not realistically feasible. Given the article is both incomplete and inaccurate data, it should be removed. 2404:440C:2A5F:8000:FC00:6ED1:C82F:5245 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article not included on Wikipedia pages of breeds other than Pitbulls? This in itself highlights the biased and incomplete nature of the article and reporting within it. 2404:440C:2A5F:8000:FC00:6ED1:C82F:5245 (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read a paper today, "Extensive and mutilating craniofacial trauma involving defleshing and decapitation: unusual features of fatal dog attacks in the young" in American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, by Tsokos et al., 2007, that said, “Pit bull–type” dogs refers to a variety of breeds including the bull terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, the American pit bull terrier, and the American Staffordshire terrier. These dogs seem to be a particular problem compared with other breeds as they tend not to make threatening gestures, such as snarling or baring of teeth, prior to attacking and so there may be no warning of impending aggressive behavior. Pit bulls also take multiple bites and have greater jaw pressures than most other dogs, reaching 1800 pounds per square inch. Once attached, they also continue to grind their premolars and molars into tissues while holding on with their canine teeth causing greater amounts of soft-tissue.... (and do not Google that paper lightly, there are reasons I'm not linking to it directly here) I don't see why Wikipedia owes any duty to censor reliably sourced information about specific types of dog that some peer reviewed journal papers consider problematic in the interest of "righting great wrongs". I also don't think it's appropriate to suggest that Wikipedia should take a political stance on Breed-Specific Legislation, or for Wikipedia to self-censor for that reason. Geogene (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you said and wanted to add that the column says "dog type" not "dog breed confirmed by DNA".
I try to be as accurate as possibel, so if a Belgian Shepherd fatally bit someone I add the variety into the column (Groenendael, Tervuren, Malinois or Laekenois) if mentioned in the source. Same with pit bulls, I try to go into details if possible.
Some seem to think this is a "List of fatal dog breeds", NO it is a list of fatal dog attacks which also includes information about the dog. But it also includes information about the year it happend, the state, the age and sex of the victim, the circumstances, the injuries, the relationship with the dog, the dogs name, if the dog was mistreated and if the dog was euthanized and more. Why should all this be deleted if researches look for such information? Wikigrund (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The bulk of the article is cited to secondary sources and, therefore, is not original research. Can you please provide specific examples of content that you believe editors have created? Yes, the article is incomplete/missing years but that is not a reason to delete it. As in, Wikipedia is a process and has no deadline. Also, including breeds that have fatally attcked and excluding those breeds (i.e.smaller dog breeds) that have not killed is not bias, but sticking to the subject of the article. This article is about fatal attacks, not any attack or breed temperments. Bias would be if someone went through the article and removed all references to a specific breed or specifically left out a breed that has fatally attacked. You provide no evidence of actual bias, just your personal diagreement with the article's content. Rublamb (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some now fixed examples: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Traumnovelle (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not sufficient that the sources are somehow secondary, which I would contest in any case: it's the whole collecting procedure in the first place. You say that "if researches look for such information", but it matters whether it's a good sample if it is to be used for data. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are adequate reliable secondary sources on this topic to prove its notability and general interest. I agree that the article needs work and that not all of its content is adequately sourced. That is why tags exist (see WP:ATD-T) However, the decision to delete or keep an article is not based on its current condition but on whether or not there are enough potential sources to meet the general guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia and to improve its content. When searching Newspapers.com for "dog bit death", I got 81 results. Even if we limited this article to incidents with national coverage or deaths that received out-of-area coverage or coverage in major newspapers, there are more than enough sources to meet notability. For example, my search for "dog bite death USA" in the Washington Post yielded more than 3,000 hits. Even though many of those are false hits, only five of those potential sources need to be usable for this article to soundly meet notability. I disagree with the recommendation to merge this because of its length and potential to get even longer. It is common practice for long lists that cover the world or the entire United States to be split into smaller chunks, such as by country or by state. There are several reasons behind this practice, one being that not all Wikipedia users and editors have devices that can deal with that much data. Also, it is hard to keep the balance between all components of a worldwide article if a country like the United States seems overrepresented because it has more new coverage. Instead, it is a better practice to summarize the US in the world list, and the US have as much coverage warranted by events and sources. Rublamb (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a fairly weak keep for me, because I'm not particularly enthusiastic about it, but it seems to me that we use list pages for topics like this. We have other, similar list pages in Category:Lists of fatal dog attacks by country, and I see no reason why a US list would be more or less problematic than the others. As demonstrated by other editors above, there is adequate sourcing for a significant number (even if, perhaps, not all) of the individual entries, and there is adequate sourcing to define the topic as a whole. The list is long enough that there isn't a good reason for a merge, and I'm not seeing any policy problems with defining it by having been in the US. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fatal dog attacks in the United States and drop the list. Been mulling this one over a few days reading over the comments, and so far I haven't seen anything would have convinced me to close this list as keep from a WP:PAG perspective as someone uninvolved. I'm a mixed bag on the entirety of the article, but I do agree with others mentioning WP:INDISCRIMINATE that there is a tension here in terms of WP:NLIST that is not going away by just keeping the list. I haven't seen a comment here really showing that NLIST is actually satisfied. That said, and this is a key distinction I've noticed some keep !votes have blurred, is that the general topic of fatal dog attacks, or even dog attacks in the US is notable. That distinction should be looked at more closely in !votes at the close. Instead of a list article, a regular article on the subject using what sources summarize instead of us editors indiscriminately grabbing from headlines for a list would be very valid from a policy perspective. Let the secondary sources give an overview of frequency, breeds, victim demographics, etc. as the intro to the current list already does rather than keep trying to use a list format. KoA (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding on so I'm not re-editing my original post again, but as I read over the meat many of the keeps, they're really making a case not for having a list article, but rather for covering the subject of dog attacks in general. That's very different than justifying having a list article, so there is some confounding going on with this AfD due to the current target basically having: 1. a start (or more than just that) of an article, 2. a list. Wires shouldn't be crossed between the current status of article text that could be split off and the list itself at least for assessing list notability. That at least in part looks like what has caused issues in assessing this with the multiple AfD noms over time, so I think the eventual closer will have some heavier lifting than normal to sort through the keep !votes carefully. KoA (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting point, that the topic may be better suited to a regular article than to a list page. I'm inclined to agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I suspect your recommedation is to move the article, rather than merging, as the article you suggest merging with only exists as a redirect. The narrative lede to the list is appropriate for FL class articles. A long lede does not mean that aarticle should not be a list. In this case, there is an existing precident for articles that are titled "List of fatal dog attacks in (country)". Therefore, it makes more sense to leave the existing title and format so that Wikipedia users can easily find information for various countires. In addition, the table format gives users the ability to search and sort data — something that is not possible in a narrative article. I suggest expanding the columns in the tables so the list can be sorted by age, and gender, etc., increasing the ways the data can be accessed. I was going to do this when I did a quick copy edit, but decided to wait for the outcome of this discussion. Rublamb (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Functionally you could call it a move, but I put it as merge/redirect because that link already exists and that's part of the existing AfD framework options. That and it it would involve content changes.
    As for the rest, the existing narrative doesn't matter for notability discussion, and the rest is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that doesn't really matter in terms of policy and guideline. The reality is that the notability lies with the subject itself as a main article, not a list. KoA (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: MOS says "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles." They just use a different format to convey information. There does not need to be what you call a "main article" to support a list article. In the case of an article about a university, there might be a main article and related lists articles (alumni, sports, Greek letter organizations, campus buildings, etc.) because the combined content is too long for one article. But in this instance, the article in question is the main article. According to WP Lists, a lede is an important part of the best list articles that achieve FA class. The lede of this article is on topic and correctly provides context for this list; thus, it should be part of the notability discussion. @KoA, what you are proposing is an article name change/move and a format change which is different from an AfD discussion. That being said, it looks like you think topic meets or can meet notability, and that the article should be retained with a name and format to be determined at a later date? Rublamb (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's mostly irrelevant for this discussion, and I'd suggest reading WP:NNC. No one is talking about there needing to be a main article to support a list article. We don't create lists for every regular article either. Not every topic that satisfies WP:N will satisfy WP:NLIST.
    The concept of a list for this topic just doesn't have notability, but the overall subject outside of the list aspect does, and those are two different things. That's why I mentioned in keep !votes such as yours that if I was closing instead of deciding to comment, your comments would have weighed against a straight keep because of that confounding in justification between list notability and just regular topic notability. That's also why I came here to suggest swapping the redirect targets as a solution instead of just another no-consensus close. We do article name changes, redirects, merges, etc. at AfD all the time, and that actually would help take care of the list notability issue that keeps bringing this back to AfD. KoA (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @KoA: Sorry if I misunderstood your concern. I would direct you to WP:LISTN which says "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. ...notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Clearly, changing the name makes no difference with regards to determining notablity. And, if the topic is notable, so is its related list. Rublamb (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeatedly mentioned issues with WP:NLIST as why this keeps coming back to AfD, so I'm very familiar with the guideline I've been discussing the whole time. As I already said repeatedly, this is not a notable list topic per that very guideline, but the general topic is. There aren't sets of lists establishing notability beyond the general topic discussion. What you're suggesting would be similar coming to a Bombay cat AfD and saying cats are notable, so keep. List topics don't automatically WP:INHERIT notability from the general topic, it's the focus on lists in sources that does that here. List topics are a subset of a general topic when lists within become notable, which is why NLIST discusses "list topics" and assessing those groupings as a whole.
    Much of what you're bring up such as the entirety of lists in sources isn't at issue here and is not addressing the central question for this AfD on notability of the list topic at hand. The question for this AfD is centered on the notability of lists in this subject, not the broader subject of dog attacks. If people can't handle that distinction, us outside editors aren't going to be able to help much in cutting through the issue that's clearly not going away.
    At the end of the day, just having the article move to dealing with the subject in prose alleviates the NLIST issues that continually bring this to AfD, and it also allows for WP:NOTEWORTHY instances or case studies to be discussed in the article or even put in tables as opposed to an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that has been a concern here too. The list question here is just causing too many WP:PAG issues that are much easier to deal with if the article is allowed to be a general article instead of a list. KoA (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As to the suggestion to merge into Fatal dog attacks in the United States, please note that the page was previously named that, and used to have a significant amount of non-list prose content. The article was systematically stripped of non-list content and finally renamed to "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" when all but the barest lead prose had been removed. To illustrate: a long discussion in April 2019 discussed breaking up the article into multiple smaller subjects or related subjects; an edit on September 25, 2019 removed all the studies; an edit on October 31, 2019 removed prose content and nineteen sources; a December 2019 discussion found consensus to rename; and on January 13, 2020‎ it was renamed to be List of fatal dog attacks in the United States.

Thus, the original single article—this article—had been fractured into multiple articles including "Fatal dog attacks", "List of fatal dog attacks", and several country break out articles.

The key point is that this article used to have prose information that gave it weight and the stamp of approval for standalone notability. Due to size constraints—and the subsequent splitting/fracturing—it should maintain its notability due to its alliance with the other articles in the series, if not simply because it fulfills the informational purpose of lists as mentioned in NLIST. NLIST discusses creating stand-alone lists but does not address lists when they are split—in this case with the prose content being moved elsewhere, leaving the list standing alone.

If you want to "merge" something, then put some of the USA prose content back into "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" from "Fatal dog attacks", whether it remains named "List of" or not. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add some guideline support, WP:SUMMARY says, "Long stand-alone lists may be split alphanumerically or chronologically or in another way that simplifies maintenance without regard to individual notability of the subsections." -- Jfhutson (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plenty of sources (and common sense) supporting WP:NLIST. Re WP:NOTNEWS, the topic "fatal dog attacks in the US" has enduring notability, though each one of these attacks do not. Similarly, WP:ROUTINE is about the notability of individual events, and no one is arguing any of these attacks have notability. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about putting things in context, and this article does a great job of putting the list of dog attacks in context with high-quality sources. --Jfhutson (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Dog bites man isn't news. Man bites dog IS news. Dog kills person is also news.
If I want to know about attacks by animals, where will I find it in Wikipedia? Statistics just tell me that 30 to 50 people are killed each year. I want more than that. The last paragraph of fatal dog attacks says "The author also rues the lack of "comprehensive surveillance" of dog bite related fatalities."
I'm not going to quote MOS, but on this one I am an inclusionist. Where else, other than Wikipedia, will researchers go for information about dog attacks? A list, with sources, is sufficient. The only discussion should be which article is appropriate for that information. Humpster (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>If I want to know about attacks by animals, where will I find it in Wikipedia
Dog bite.
>Where else, other than Wikipedia, will researchers go for information about dog attacks?
Hopefully literally anywhere else - Wikipedia is a horrible place for researchers to find information, especially in long indiscriminate lists that have been targetted by a third party activist group. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did politics play a role in your nominating this article? An IP made some political commentary above, and it is odd that that this article has been to AfD five times. Geogene (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know about the existence of said group until after the notice was added to it. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very odd. It seems that someone really wants to suppress this kind of data. The only organization I can think that would want to do that would be Animal Farm Foundation or its subsidiary the National Canine Research Council. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, if you truely think I have some connection to a lobbyist group then you should be bringing it up in the appropriate channels. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Golinko, Arslanian & Williams 2016.
  2. ^ O'Brien et al. 2015.
  3. ^ Bini et al. 2011.
  4. ^ Kaye, Belz & Kirschner 2009.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The phenomenon of fatal dog attacks is a notable subject... which is why we already have a whole article on that subject. That article includes a large section on the US that covers this subject better than this article does, without the indiscriminate content and low quality sources. The meat of this page is a thoroughly indiscriminate list of non-notable incidents involving non-notable people sourced to news stories of individual incidents, created and predominantly written by a couple WP:SPAs focused on anti-pitbull advocacy and dog attacks. The list doesn't merit a separate article from the notable topic per WP:NOPAGE, and more importantly this is a WP:NOT issue. We're indiscriminately hosting a massive list that effectively reproduces the lists available on advocacy websites. Any argument based just on notability isn't addressing the issue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Since others have also said this article is flawed because of editor bias, I decided to take a look as a neutral editor who does a lot of work with lists. Hidden in the weeds, there were many notable fatalities, meaning they had national/out-of-local area coverage or were included in major newspapers or magazines. A challenge is a lack of guidelines for inclusion in the list. I have proposal guidelines on the article's TalkPage which is pending adoption. For the sake of the AfD discussion, I went ahead and made the first pass at removing fatalities that only had local coverage. I believe this addresses most of your concerns. I also did a review of the NYT archives, adding some content from the 19th and 20th centuries, both for balance and to show that sources exist to continue expanding the article. Rublamb (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This misses the point. Wikipedia has an awful lot of editors focused on dog attacks and pitbulls in particular. The design of a page which covers not just the subject of fatal dog attacks but attempts to include as many entries as possible is where the NPOV exists. Whether we call it a WP:POVFORK or just bending our typical treatment of lists to accommodate an exhaustive list of local events (rather than notable examples) is an NPOV problem. That it comes from editors with a clear POV and single focus on this project is simply unsurprising rather than a cause to delete in its own right. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think that's accurate re "our typical treatment of lists." We have lists of notable things, and we have lists of things whether notable or not with clear inclusion criteria. I don't know how to prove it without being accused of OTHERSTUFF, but here are some examples: Category:Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States by year, Category:Lists of people executed in the United States, Category:Lists of libraries in the United States. -- JFHutson (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue is that it lists breed. Which attracts the advocates. I doubt there would be much interest updating that list if breed was not included. If people want to keep a list, a suggestion would be to remove the breed from the list. There are so many studies out there that show breed is not reliably determined by looks, so I don't see a reasonable argument for keeping breed listed. News are more than reliable in reporting incidents, but they shouldn't be relied upon reporting the breed, unless a genetic test was performed, which is in very rare instances. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The user Rhododentrites thinks this list reproduces the lists available on advocacy websites. I strongly disagree.
    - On Wikipedia everyone can add a fatality, so we can add fatalities those websites might leave out. Since there are many different editors, one must try to be accurate and avoid biased writing. That is a good thing and distinguishes this list from those websites. No one complained about me adding the Labrador who was involved in the death of a cyclist who drove into the dog. (List of fatal dog attacks in Germany)
    -I find the point of notability interesting. Because in countries with very few fatal dog attacks, every attack logically leads to debates. Austria has very strict animal welfare rules and dog laws, there are hardly any fatal incidents involving humans. Interestingly, findings from international studies are also reflected in Austria, despite the fact that fatal attacks are so rare. More than 70% of severe injuries and deaths are caused by Rottweilers and Pit bull type dogs, closely followed by German Shepherds. The lists reflect the statistics and are, in my opinion, not biased. Other factors like the age of the victims and the circumstances are also similar and interesting to compare with other countries.
    -The USA has a shockingly high number of fatal dog attacks, so a selection might makes sense (I don't know what the rules are and how long a article is allowed to be), but it does have some pitfalls. Some cases get more coverage (if the victim is a child etc. or the attack resulted in extreme injuries). I would prefer to add every case available if this is possible. Even the strange cases where a dog was involved and did nothing wrong. (Like List of unusual death)
    - Maybe criteria for notability of the cases and attacks should be that they were fatal in the end and involved dogs. No matter the news coverage, circumstances or dog type etc. There are so much more dog attacks that were nearly fatal, so a fatal one is notable in my opinion.
    - If we decide to only add fatalities with national or even international coverage we have to check every fatality, because I tend to add local newspapers as a source if possible, which does not mean there was no national or international coverage (since I find some cases from the US in German newspapers).
    - I think information researchers are looking for includes: age, sex, type of injury, state, county, legal situation, convictions, circumstances, dog type, animal welfare (stray dogs, dog fighting issues). It would be good to focus on getting all that information in, instead of hyperfocusing on the "dog type" and delete delete delete. Information about the dog breed or type can be important but it is only one factor. It does not have to be perfect either, because if I look at cases I do further research anyway. Wikigrund (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (yet another WP:SPA). To some of the content: casting an even wider net than the advocacy sites is not a good thing, and regarding Maybe criteria for notability of the cases and attacks should be that they were fatal in the end and involved dogs - notability on Wikipedia means WP:N. It's typically about having enough coverage for a wide audience and over a period of time for a Wikipedia article. Most lists on Wikipedia that constitute lists of examples are lists of notable examples. Some lists aim to be exhaustive (discographies, lists of presidents of a particular country, lists of cars made by Audi, etc.). Fatal dog attacks is not one such list where I think we should aim to be exhaustive. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: My point exactly. This was my quick pass of trimming the content to notable attacks, since reverted. Rublamb (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just pointing out that Rhododendrites' mention of WP:NOPAGE really does drive home the WP:PAG argument for at least not keeping a list page. Above in my !vote I mentioned essentially just redirecting/merging to fatal dog attacks or having a US article specifically, especially in terms of Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article. . . A list isn't needed for this topic and has only been causing problems with the tensions it causes with WP:NLIST. Instead, let secondary sources do the broad-level summarizing for us in a regular article where we aren't forced into having a list, but still have the option for a focused one if needed in that article.
    At the end of the day, WP:CONSENSUS isn't a majority vote, but what best addresses our WP:PAG. Most keep votes aren't addressing the underlying policy or guideline issues, often just declaring the topic is notable while confounding the actual topics between list notability and general topic notability. There are solutions being proposed whether it's in the merge/redirect or delete comments, but closing this as keep or no consensus would mean the underlying problems would still remain and just end up back here at a later date. It does look like these AfDs get derailed by WP:ISNOT violations claiming we need to provide this data for researchers, etc. too. This is going to be a mess for a closer to sort through and weight comments, but this does seem like a case where if notability of the list topic is not established after this many AfDs, that's something the closer should be weighing in on. KoA (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the key guideline here is NLIST, and that that has already been addressed above. I agree that the subject is notable enough to have a standalone article at Fatal dog attacks in the United States, however, creating that article does not require a merge or deletion of this list article. Arguing that this article should be deleted without consensus just because some people keep nominating it, and are perhaps likely to nominate it again, is not in at all in accordance with the PAGs that this post repeatedly appeals to. If anything, continuing to propose deletion for an article that has been to AfD four times already is disruptive behavior that should not be encouraged. As for "researchers", the entire point of Wikipedia is to spread free knowledge. Geogene (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the responses agreeing to merge or delete, this is not disruptive behavior. Remember that the first AfD was no consensus and the 2014 version was delete. Also, the point of Wikipedia is to spread reliable knowledge, not any knowledge. This is why we have WP:RSN, to discuss what is and isn't a reliable source. Conyo14 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the content in this article is reliably sourced. If you dispute that, then the correct procedure to remedy that is on the article's talk page, not an AfD. Watching this AfD devolve into complaints about other editors allegedly being SPAs and, really, trying to bring any policy into it other than NLIST shows that there is no coherent delete argument here. Geogene (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to strongarm the framing of discussion into the only guideline you think should apply, as though we don't routinely delete for a variety of other guideline-based reasons (not to mention policy-based reasons), and pointing fingers about "coherence" and "devolving" discussion because it doesn't meet your own personal framing is not helpful. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Geogene's comments and can see no point in removing useful data, especially when there are similar lists for fatal shark attacks, fatal bear attacks, fatal snake bites, and for mass shootings. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two AfDs of the main page were closed with no consensus and the 2010 was closed with keep.
    Quote: "The result was keep. The overall concept of humans being killed by dogs is notable, the individual entries on the list of course need to be properly sourced but do not need to be notable in and of themselves."
    I do agree with the user Geogene that nominating again and again and again is disruptive behavior. The user who made the AfD did'nt even bother to bring some of the solveable issues up on the talk page. Instead they went straight for AfD because: "[..] I want to see what the overall consensus is this time around for the list." Wikigrund (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The result of the first RfD was "keep." Some folks seem unable to accept that so they return every few years to see if they can enough votes to delete it. I say, "votes" because the arguments haven't changed much in 14 years. Astro$01 (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More discussion on whether clearer selection criteria would ameliorate the concerns about INDISCRIMINATE and NOTNEWS would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the proposed selection criteria by Rublamb would alleviate most of my concerns, currently the discussion about that is ongoing on the article talk page. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just responding after the relist comment, but WP:LISTN issues that keep bringing this back to AfD are not due to list selection criteria, so that would not address the underlying issue of notability of the list topic. Either we fix the problem by doing away with the list article format and going to a "normal" article or else the issues persist and we're back here again after some time to try to tackle the underlying issues yet again. KoA (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I don't find the WP:LISTN issues that you mention. There seems to be agreement that the topic is notable. The lede provides sources that discuss the topic in general and summarizes fatal attacks. The list follows with notable examples with significant coverage. Thus, topic is notable, the group is notable, and the citted examples are notable. So how does this fail WP:LISTN? Rublamb (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you indent, that lets us know it's a response. No need for boldtext. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the WP:LISTN issues that you mention. And that's the underlying problem here that editors are not engaging with the LISTN issues and just keep broadly insisting the topic is notable. Denialism about that is not helpful here if any of us outside editors are going to be helpful in addressing the underlying problems at the article. That's already been addressed above though ad nauseum, so please be mindful of WP:BADGERING at this point.
Discussions like these are WP:NOTAVOTE when it comes to measuring consensus. When issues like this are found and keep !votes just insist it's notable (or won't differentiate the differences between general notability and lists), those comments are typically weighed very little when it comes to assessing WP:CONSENSUS. It's usually those actively working to fix the underlying issues this doesn't end up back at AfD yet again, not tangents like the IP comments just pasted below. KoA (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that other editors won't engage on WP:LISTN issues; it is that we disagree that there is a WP:LISTN issue in the first place.
It seems to me the "there is no issue" argument is based on a plain reading of the WP:LISTN criteria, namely that the topic of fatal dog attacks "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
The list introduction includes citations on the topic from independent, reliable sources, which satisfies the WP:LISTN criteria. QED. Astro$01 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following were posted to the talk page. I am reposting here because it appears these editors meant to participate in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rublamb (talk • contribs)
  • The public has a right to these statistics and information which are based in fact. It shouldn’t be removed or obscured because of someone’s beliefs, views, opinions or sensitivities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B16B:D5DE:BD4D:69A6:30A1:FD95 (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is most likely a pit bull fanatic who wants to have this useful article deleted. Please keep it up! 2603:6011:8CF0:5CF0:C19D:B680:8D41:66 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.
  • This comprehensive compilation should not be erased from public access. I just saw that someone attempts to get this article removed from Wikipedia.This is a comprehensive list of all serious incidents in human/dog interactions in the US and lists the breeds involved. It is well documented and referenced, so there is no justifiable reason to remove it. Wanderwonders (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.
  • Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.
  • Keep it I see no reason to remove an article that is listing facts without any sensationalism. This is useful information to those looking into owning a potentially dangerous dog breed or to those needing statistics to create local laws that ban ownership of such breeds 2603:6011:8CF0:5CF0:C19D:B680:8D41:66 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.
These are all very textbook arugments to avoid in deletion discussions or flat out WP:ISNOT policy violations, but it does illustrate the kind of "padding" I was seeing in the AfD back when I was debating on closing the AfD vs. looking for alternative solutions. KoA (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT The responses above are exactly why my call for deletion was and is based primarily on WP:NOR. If this is supposed to be used as raw data about the subject— and these responses make clear that plenty will read it that way— readers should be getting it from reputable researchers with a published methodology, not a range of random WP authors of unknown ability, interest, and intent. This is a collection of primary data, and we should be reporting on the analysis of it, or rather, on an analysis of data collected by actual statisticians and social analysts. Mangoe (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The same argument could be made about a great deal of Wikipedia--that it consists of random facts pulled together by various editors of unknown ability, interest, and intent. We have to trust the system of editors reviewing and monitoring other editors and remember that all are welcome to participate. I have issues with the suggestion that we should delete content to control how someone might use it. That really goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. As it currently stands, this article provides a general historical overview of notable fatal dog attacks. Its information is from reliable sources, including notable newspapers, magazines, and news outlets. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD says, "While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source..." In addition, WP:PRIMARY says, "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" and "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Thus, using reliable newspapers and magazines as sources for basic facts (who, what, when, where) is within the scope of allowable use, especially considering that the article's lede uses secondary sources to discuss the importance of the data and the conclusions drawn from the data. Rublamb (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rhododendrites and KoA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Keep but remove breed. There are several studies, some listed here[26][27][28], that have determined breed identification by visual inspection to be unreliable. News report what Animal Control states, and if its known their staff can't reliably determine breed, then the news is just reporting unreliable information too. There really isn't an argument for keeping data on Wikipedia that is already known to be unreliable, so I would say to either delete it, or remove breed from it and keeping a list of incidents with no breed listed. The exception, would be where DNA tests were done, but those are in the minority. This would also detract from users who go there for advocacy on either side. Removing inaccurate information and reducing POV is a double-win for Wikipedia. Also will sign myself as an SPA for disclosure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC) — Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If a reliable source, e.g., a newspaper article says the breed is a Great Dane, then a Wikipedia article should be able to say it is a Great Dane. Astro$01 (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context matters when evaluating sources. Not just the source, but to the specific facts and not just the source, per WP:RS. One reasonable mind can argue that, given the context surrounding breed identification reliability, media outlets relying on visual breed identification are reporting on unreliable information. At least one news report disclosed this within their reporting when using breed identification as well.Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the battle here appears to relate to pit bull lovers or haters. As an editor who has no bias in the dog breed issue, I have looked at every included attack and its source. In most of these cases, the source for the breed info appears to be the dog's owner, not animal control. In many cases, forensic work was done on the dog. In other cases, the sources indicate that the breed is unknown. The sources you provide relate to shelter workers, not pet owners or even animal control. But that really doesn't matter. As @Astro$01 suggests, the cited sources are considered reliable. Applying the articles you mention to discredit those reliable sources, would be original research, especially since the articles you want to introduce are not about fatal dog attacks or news reporting. Rublamb (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I honestly don't have the time to look at every incident and every source. However, I did do a random sample containing the first 2 attacks in a year going back to 2005. That is when the genome mapping of dogs was complete, so automatically, pre-2005 isn't in dispute for DNA analysis. Of the ones inspected, All did not mention DNA testing being performed, in fact it was common for them to just say "identified". Only one reference to DNA was one news stating a disclaimer that its been found that identifying a dog without DNA analysis is unreliable, so kudos for responsible journalism there. Of the attacks, about 22/24 of the attacks the owner of the attack was known, but few eluded to the family identifying the breed. Mainly a neighbor giving a description, firefighter, or animal services. Given the unreliability of visual breed identification and the rampant use of it within this article, I really don't see an argument for keeping breed in it, unless its to keep a list of unreliable data.
There is also the issue with this being used for advocacy, can you ensure that the list is not inherently biased given the attention this list draws by advocacy groups? There is an incentive to add "pit bulls" to the list, but not much other dog attacks by editors interested in this wiki article. For example, just this last year there has already been a dog attack[29] omitted from this article, and it just so happens to not be identified as a "pit bull". However, there has not been one dog attack labeled as a "pit bull" omitted from this list. This page is unreliable in so many ways I honestly feel like just removing it now. A incomplete list, at best, gives readers an unreliable picture. At worst, it serves a propaganda for editors with an agenda.Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table says "dog type" and not "dog breed confirmed by DNA analysis". The linked Wikipedia articles clearly explain what a Husky type is, for example, and that breeds and crossbreeds are included. It is also explained in the article "Pitt bull" which is always linked in every fatality.  The dog type column can also contain a description such as stray dog, guard dog, mixed breed, unknown or large dog if no more information is known.
Even people with little knowledge of dogs can distinguish between these dog types. Wikigrund (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion may be that people with little knowledge of dogs can. However, it runs counter to the many studies that exist that show that even with knowledge of dogs cannot reliably determine a breed. Do you have a study to back up your beliefs, if so I am a nerd for this topic and would appreciate reading it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2024 (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_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1220549951"