Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-eater

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 keep‎. The nomination and following arguments by the nominator raises valid concerns about the state of the article and potentially harmful effects of its editorializing. However, while keep voters failed to do more than assert that coverage exists, analysis of man-eaters does exist as a topic of scholarly literature (e.g. [1], [2]), and thus this is a conventional guideline-based keep outcome and not an IAR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man-eater[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is heavily WP:SYNTH, and just lists out animal attacks on people, which are already detailed in the separate article animal attack. "List of animals who have attacked people" might be a more correct name for the article, but the SYNTH nature of the article means it's probably best off deleted. Classifying any animal as a "man-eater" is scientifically faulty, since most animals just go after what prey is in their immediate vicinity. There may be some specific members of their species that are acclimated to eating humans, but this article goes for broad generalizations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Science, and Environment. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - redundant with animal attack. Llajwa (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't seem redundant to me, at least in principle; attacking humans and habitually eating humans are two quite different things. I can get the hell scratched out of me by a raccoon or a stray housecat, for example, but these animals are not really "man-eaters". Nor are the humans who attack other humans in wars (well, most of them anyway). jp×g 🗯️ 00:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there is no animal whose main food source is humans. The most you will get is specific creatures whose territory has been deliberately encroached on and have been provoked. This article relies mostly on tabloid headlines that call certain animals "man-eaters" in a misleading manner, as well as synthesis of other places where they are not called man-eaters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not redundant, animal attacks vs. those that would willingly consume humans calls for a distinction. 2601:18C:8085:1180:A1FE:99EE:AAD:DE (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost any carnivorous animal could willingly consume humans if forced to, that doesn't really mean anything. Similarly, this is only about cases of animals who have, many times randomly, attacked a human, but implies they somehow always prey on people. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Man-eater refers to an individual predatory animal that has become habituated to eating people. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is very useful to have, as many people are unaware of what animals eat people and what animals don't eat people, as well as how often that it occurs. I have now added some sources to some of the sections that had none. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a separate (more specific) topic from animal attack. It's handy to have a hub for information on anthropophagy as distinct from anthropo-beat-uppery, which can serve as a location for material on taxa where this is less well-documented (e.g. hyenas) and as a summary and pointer for those where we have more in-depth material elsewhere (e.g., big cats) Some of the sources in the article are admittedly rubbish, and the unreferenced sections need to go. Otherwise I think this is fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.11.113 (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, what? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would like to keep this page. I think it is topic that people are interested in. In addition, I agree that it is should be edited with better sources added, and more details given about each attack. Suncheon Boy
Keep Then describe the Champawat Tiger case. Why was she going after people? Would you describe this as an ordinary animal attack or as something far more terrifying? While regular animals attack humans in self-defense, man-eaters actively seek out and hunt people. See the difference. Many reliable scientific literature supports the term "man-eater". Try searching it up on Google Scholar. 20 upper (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Since AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE, any keep vote that doesn't demonstrate the separate notability of this topic should be ignored. All of them so far have been WP:ITSUSEFUL or a variation therein. Misleading material shouldn't be kept under the guise of usefulness. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching a bit, are we? Notability is NOT the only criterion for retaining an article; otherwise we wouldn't have the many "overview of" types (super-topic), nor things like Research history of Mosasaurus (sub-topic). We are trying to organize an encyclopedia here. That requires a certain amount of infrastructure elements, and this article is one such. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When everyone is against you, just insist their votes don't matter? Dream Focus 22:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be useful to see more policy- and guideline-based views here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenuous keep. Should be renamed to some sort of list if kept but I'm not sure either. "Man-eater" as a concept probably could warrant a broad overview type article but it would take quite a lot of work to assemble. This article is basically a list of animals known to kill people, which I suppose is notable? I wouldn't bet on it though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tenuous keep: Man-eating is a real phenomenon where an individual animal becomes habituated to eating people. There's certainly room for improvement in the article, like adding a discussion on its causes. LittleJerry (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There is a difference between animals that attack humans and animals that actually eat humans. This article documents incidents of individual animals that have eaten humans as well, such as the Tsavo man-eaters, and such a distinction of being a man-eater has been enough to warrant an animal being given an article. Velociraptor888 00:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any time any animal eats a person, it makes news, this is something notable that gets coverage. People then study the reasons why and publish articles about that. https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-makes-man-eater-check-teeth Also the Encyclopædia Britannica has an entry about this: https://www.britannica.com/story/6-real-life-man-eating-animals Dream Focus 22:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I get it, people like the topic and think it is notable, but that is not the issue raised by the nomination. For a policy-based consensus to keep, participants in this AfD need to address and rebut the nominator's contention that the topic and the content are WP:SYNTH.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: trying to address the issue of WP:SYNTH which starts Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources.: the question for me is what is being taken from Source A and Source B to imply erroneously Conclusion C in this page. I don't see it; what conclusion is the page trying to state? There is a bunch of information which is unsourced and could/should be removed, but to me it is undeniable that many sources have described individual animals as a quote unquote "man-eater". To me the more questionable aspect is around WP:OR and whether such a page could ever be created without substantial selectivity of available data by editors and orginal research. JMWt (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list article. It links to the main articles for different species attacking. Valid navigational list, as well as a valid information list. List of man eaters, List of animals that kill humans for food, or whatever you want to call it. Dream Focus 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe, but it isn’t arranged like a navigational list at present JMWt (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion it's trying to draw is that certain animals, as the article claims, "prey on humans as a pattern of hunting behavior". This would appear to be promoting hysteria and misinformation/disinformation, as while many animals do prey on humans, it's not a "pattern" except in rare cases. The article claims, for example, that "lions have been recorded to actively enter human villages at night as well as during the day to acquire prey", while using weasel wording that makes it sound like all lions do this from time to time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A man-eater is an individual animal or being that preys on humans as a pattern of hunting behavior. It clearly states individual animal, not the entire species.

As for lions, in the same paragraph you quote it reads "Lions typically become man-eaters for the same reasons as tigers: starvation, old age, and illness". It does not claim this is a common thing all lions do. Dream Focus 06:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article really means to implicate single animals, it does a poor job of it, as it discusses entire species, rather than being a list of all notable single animals who have attacked (and eaten, though I am unsure why this is even relevant) humans. That is why I said that the topic could be notable under an alternate name and with more clear delineations between killer animals and their species at large, but the article itself is SYNTH and violates WP:NOT in clear fashion. "Individual animal" can also read as "individual species". This isn't even a "cleanup is required" issue, it's a "blow it up and start over somewhere else as a pure navigational list" situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most people don't have a problem understanding it, and have already stated it should be kept.

It is a valid article for discussing man-eaters. India has official government documents which use the terminology "man eater" and defines it clearly.

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/wildlife-biodiversity/what-is-the-exact-procedure-to-remove-a-man-eater--62059

“The declaration of an aberrant tiger / leopard as a man eater requires considerable examination based on field evidences. At times, the human beings killed due to chance of encounters may also be eaten by the animal. However, such happenings are not sufficient for classifying a tiger / leopard as a man eater, which can best be established only after confirming the habituation of the aberrant animal for deliberate stalking of human beings, while avoiding its natural prey" Dream Focus 14:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with animal attack. There is useful information presented within the article but it is not worth a separate article in and of itself. "man eating" is a subset of animal attack - a pattern of continued animal attacks and I believe it should simply be a section within the more general animal attack as the information is best presented there. EvilxFish (talk) 06:35, 12 February 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.