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 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed by dogs in the United States[edit]

List of people killed by dogs in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Entries in Lists of people articles should have individual notability. Not a single entry in this list has its own article. (There's Diane Whipple but she is not currently on the list.) Also, given that we don't have accurate sources that tells us the total number of fatal attacks per year there is no way to verify the completeness of the list. This would normally not be a problem but the article uses statistics from the list to explicitly point out the over-representation of Pit Bulls in fatal attacks. This is original research. Any useful non-list info should go into Dog attack. Dodo bird (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Move The proposed deletion misses the point of the guideline.

"Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above"

The "Notability criteria above" state,

"Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."

The List of people killed by dogs in the United States is a valid topic for the same reason that the List_of_fatal,_unprovoked_shark_attacks_in_the_United_States is a valid topic: fatal shark attacks, like fatal dog attacks, are unusual occurrences and are therefore "worthy of notice". As it happens, both the Pit Bull and Dog attack article references the List of people killed by dogs in the United States just as the List_of_fatal,_unprovoked_shark_attacks_in_the_United_States is referenced by the Shark Attack article. The list proposed for deletion has therefore been ranked as a "High" importance list by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs.

With regard to "Completeness of the list", it's easy enough to add:

This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items. (August 2010)

rather than using it as an excuse to demand the deletion of the entire article.

The claim of "original research" fails since the percentage calculations (percentage) are merely arithmetic summarizing the list entries shown in the article itself, and so merit exemption under WP:CALC." Astro$01 (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the big hang-up here is that this is a List of People... then it seems to me an easy compromise is to rename the list to be List of Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States, at which point the people are merely ancillary information to complete the description of the fatal dog attack, rather than the main point of the list. Astro$01 (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-encyclopedic list. Seems like a soap box for the pit bull law that I know very little about, but I know exists.Lollipopfop (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Rule: No one in this discussion can take into account the facts about how many of these dogs were pit bulls. This information has not been intentionally slanted by people with a bias against pit bulls. By this I mean, there are not a bunch of fatal dog attacks that involved cocker spaniels or some such that have been slyly left off the list by POV sneeks. If the facts contained make pit bulls and pit bull mixes look bad and the ones you know are lovely dogs, BE THAT AS IT MAY! It the business of Wikipedia to report the facts as they are, not to make sure that they don't support one view over another. Get a valid reason or don't opine in this section. In my humble opinion, of course. Chrisrus (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-encyclopedic list. The article itself states that "There are a limited number of studies concerning the number of human deaths caused by dogs in the United States, and the number of attributed fatalities is difficult to validate..." --Crunch (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The entries in the list are only notable for their deaths, and Wikipedia is not memorial site. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a very important list-article with good citations, an excellent chart, and all notable incidents. People wanting to research this topic, such as myself, find this list very useful. If you want to see what a "memorial site" article looks like, see Diane Whipple, this is not a memorial but collection of important information. Chrisrus (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the people who died are not notable. Their deaths are not notable. I couldn't find anything on individual animals but isn't the sheer length of this list indicative of a rather common occurrence? Anyhow, even if the dogs are all notable through WP:GNG, a list combining them with a non-notable criterion is not. --Pgallert (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, collection of non-notable people; original research. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Darn well sourced and I don't see any kind of original research here. It should be made more plain this isn't all the killings, but otherwise I don't see a problem. Hobit (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too broad of a list of non-notable people, people get killed by dogs every year, in Miami several times it's occured several times in the past few years. Secret ^account 17:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - List of non-notable people and not encyclopidic. Derild4921☼ 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment: Relisting debate to give other users a chance to respond to Astro$01's proposal to refocus the article on the events, not the people. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, but Move to "List of Fatal Dog Attacks in the US", so that users like some of those who voted "delete" will stop thinking of it/calling it a list of people. It's a list of notable "Events", gives some idea of how many events, and what they have or don't have in common, and how important it is/isn't. Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chrisrus, this is your second "keep" vote at this AfD. I think editors at AfD should vote only once. More votes by one person could be confusing for a closing admin/editor. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you consider this as an event, it's WP:NOT#NEWS applicable here. Secret ^account 22:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Hobit. The article contains important and well referenced information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important information, well-sourced and well-written. --Crunch (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For both of you how it's important information? It's a list of non-notable people WP:NOT#NEWS applies here. Secret ^account 22:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, prefer Merge - there are legitimate concerns about original research here, as well as giving undue attention to the deaths of non-notable people. However, the article is well-written and useful, and provides reasonable evidence that dog attacks in the United States are a notable subject. I would prefer this article to be merged into Dog attack or rewritten to be about Dog attacks in the United States rather than simply a list, but as it is I think it is probably acceptable. Robofish (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with a Merge as long as the list is removed. Secret ^account 22:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the "non-list" part of the list is already duplicated in the Pit bull article and it is not without its problems.--Dodo bird (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Source or remove unreferenced material, discuss entries that may or may not fit the criterion. Notability is a concept that does not extend to articles contents. We need a way to talk about material of some importance that does not warrant a full article, and combination articles are lists are the obvious way. For one thing, those (sometimes called deletionists) who want to limit the number of articles about dubiously notable subjects in Wikipedia should approve very much of keeping lists such as this, for it removes the pressure to turn borderline notable things into full articles. If I were what is sometimes called a rabid inclusionist I would instead say, instead, keep , but as a summary, and expand each item possible into a full article. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What criteria is there? There is no grey area here. It's simply a list of all the people who were killed by dogs. We already have more than 150 entries for a 5-6 years period. Going by the CDC study, we would have 327 more for 1979 to 1999. A complete list for just the past 30 years would have 500-600 entries. I doubt most entries would be anywhere close to meeting the notability guidelines. When we total the deaths per year and % of specific breeds involved in those deaths (or draw any other conclusions) using the table, we are using those news sources as primary sources. It's using original research to push a POV. Anything that is of importance in the list when seen as a whole(such as circumstances of attack, age of victim, breeds involved, year by year trend) should be in prose form in Dog attack(or appropriate spin-off) and drawn from secondary sources. --Dodo bird (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've noted that some of the concerns here refer to the insufficient notability of individual events listed in the table. This is not a point here, in my opinion, WP:NOTNEWS is unapplicable. The topic - deadly dog attacks in the USA - is what we should judge. It is a notable topic, as is confirmed by the cited studies, and the detailed and verifiable information on individual attacks is a bonus here. There's no POV in the article, the summary follows secondary sources, especially the claims about the deaths per year and % of specific breeds involved. I can see no benefits for this project in deleting this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful information, well-sourced. What should be included is a very different debate from whether the page should exist Vartanza (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any notable/sourced information to Dog attack or any suitable target, but don't include the list of non-notable events and individuals per WP:NOTNEWS. --Jmundo (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any non-list info to Dog attack and then redirect. As mentioned previously, there have been hundreds if not thousands of recorded lethal dog attacks in the United States. A complete list is neither maintainable nor encyclopedic. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but reformulate list as "attacks" not "people attacks." I don't see WP:POV issues here, I think this is far enough from WP:OR that that's not an issue as per WP;CALC, the article seems sourced and WP:V. WP:NLIST, on the other hand, seems to me to be a bigger question. NLIST would definitely address this article if it were really only a list. While it is not only the list, I understand the concerns, and to my mind the real encyclopedic value of that list is not the victim names but the other information about the attacks, it seems simple enough to simply reformulate the list, remove the victim names, and call it a day.--j⚛e decker^talk 16:43, 6 September 2010 (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.