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 - there is clearly no consensus to delete the page. Most comments and arguments support keeping, perhaps with a separate discussion via RFC on the wider topic, or a merge discussion in due course. GiantSnowman 10:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I fail to see any evidence that this list is anything but an indiscriminate collection of every news report of a fatal canine attack (none of these events are notable occurrences, seeing none of them have an article), failing both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there's something encyclopedic to be written about this, it goes in a more general article about fatal canine attacks, not as this poor example of list-cruft. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: appears to be a collection of information on a well-defined category of well-documented events, nothing indiscriminate about the list. Has encyclopedic value as documenting a series of horrific events which are rare but sadly not rare enough. PamD 07:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well defined, well documented indeed. Unsettling reading, but quite a few contributors to a comprehensive list - individual events might not be notable, the collection is, IMHO. If you can have a List of Chinese Super League hat-tricks, you can have this list. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That list also appears to be WP:NOTSTATS, and WP:OSE isn't really an argument. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteper WP:NOTNEWS. This is essentially just a collection of news reports as well as two lists of stats that appear to contradict each other. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well-sourced information on an important topic. NemesisAT (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it an "important topic"? WP:ILIKEIT ("it's important") isn't really a good argument. How is this ever going to be anything but routine coverage by the newspapers? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Routine coverage by newspapers but as a whole it documents a valuable topic. It does not make sense for this article to be deleted when an article on the same subject in the United States has been retained. NemesisAT (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I was not aware of a previous discussion for that other article (which closed as "no consensus", not "keep"). That does not change my arguments. In any case, consensus (or lack thereof) can change. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, though I think it unlikely a consensus will be reached on the encyclopedicness/value of these articles any time soon, and feel these deletion nominations invariably generate more heat than light and are bad for the encyclopedia's culture as a whole. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom redirects here. An article about that subject needs to be created and the list should be better composed in paragraphs. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Deaths due to animal attacks shows ample articles like this, which have been kept in past AFDs. 85 references in this article right now. The news always covers a dog killing someone. Government stats referenced as well, this something nations keep track of. It is therefore a notable thing. Dream Focus 04:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are many dubious lists that exist on WP, this is just another one of them. For one example, take the entry for 1772 Gomastah of Kissendeo, India - torn apart by wild dogs. What does the source say? It says "very likely may have been" torn apart by wild dogs. Was he, or was he not? The article ends by basically saying that stories out of India in newspapers come with embellishments. Indeed! Unclear what the entry has to do with this topic - was India once a part of the United Kingdom, or did someone confuse the UK with the British Empire? Yet there are editors here that bear witness that this list is a well-sourced and accurate piece of work. William Harris (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is an issue with a particular list item, fix the item instead of deleting the list. Astro$01 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, however you appear to have completely missed my point. William Harris (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well-sourced list of incidents in a notable category well-covered by the media. Every one does not justidy its own article, but there's absolutely no problem with a list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that this could be better covered as an actual article, not as a WP:NOTNEWS listing of every fatal dog attack. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and readers would best be served by an article which goes into more analysis based on secondary, ideally academic sources (is there a historical trend? have dogs become more or less deadly? does it have anything to do with [insert reason x]?). Not by listcruft of every news report of it. At which point it would become something better than a list and go at Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems like an argument against all lists rather than this one in particular. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This a well-sourced list. In response to the offered rationales for deletion:

1. The WP:NOTNEWS fails because 1) the article does not contain “routine” news reporting - “dog bites man” is routine, but “dog kills man” is a rare event that 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 - it is a stand-alone list of events under a notable topic.
2. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE fails because it is a well-defined, stand-alone list that meets the selection criteria laid out in WP:LISTCRITERIA: unambiguous, objective, & supported by reliable sources. Astro$01 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The list is basically WP:PROSELINE, made into a list. I maintain that a listing of every fatal dog attack is not encyclopedic, but obviously that doesn't matter cause this is going to be kept :(. A serious article about dog attacks would include stuff such as analysis etc. But that's a straw man, since I am not arguing that "fatal dog attacks" are not-notable; I'm arguing that a listing of them is nothing more than an indiscriminate level of detail. Anyways, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:PROSELINE argument fails because that standard is intended for articles written in prose paragraph form rather than stand-alone lists. If you agree that fatal dog attacks are notable events, then a list of them is legitimate under the Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA standard. Perhaps you should clarify why a list that meets the established criteria should be deleted because it is "non-encyclopedic." Astro$01 (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well defined and covered by reliable sources in a non-routine fashion. Fatal dog attacks have a bearing on public policy in terms of regulations and laws on dog ownership and upkeep of certain breeds.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWs. Each entry is cited to a single news article as a source; this is nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of random, largely unrelated events. Just because the newspapers go wild over a dog attack, does not mean it is notable. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS. Further, these lists are and will always be susceptible to WP:RECENTISM by virtue of the availability of sources, so are really just a collection of recent such events. Cavalryman (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep and recommend RfC. Simply because I believe any concerns about the article (verifiability, appropriate content, any BLP violations) can be resolved by normal editing, and I don't think WP:NOTNEWS can apply as the notability is on the list itself, which contains events over hundreds of years. Furthermore, the Hansard source cited in the article can be used to expand the lead and explain why the level of dog attacks led to changes in the law. Per the suggestion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, I would suggest a Request for comment is started to get a consensus on the appropriateness of these list articles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite the title, this isn't really a traditional list article. And I believe that "Dog attacks in the United Kingdom" is proven notable by the sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no doubt that the topic of dog attacks is notable. The article (which truly is a list), however, is a listing of newspaper reports of fatal dog attacks in the UK [each meticulously sourced to one or a few news reports], along with a few statistics on those, and a contextless sentence about banned breeds. Once you remove the list, there's basically only a few sentences left, which would suggest a possible merge, if the corresponding non-list article existed (it unfortunately exists, so it is not a helpful red link which needs to be created, but a blue-link which redirects back, you've guessed it, to the list...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is Fatal dog attacks the "non-list article" to which you are referring? That article references this list of fatal dog attacks, so instead of proposing to delete this list, you could propose in the relevant discussion pages to move the statistics & discussion to Fatal dog attacks? Astro$01 (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referencing Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom. Thanks for pointing to the correct article. Although, since the one you link to has very little coverage about geographic differences (in legislation, prevention, ...), it would be an unsuitable target, and including statistics for individual countries directly there might be unhelpful (including a short statement about the general prevalence of dog attacks in various countries might be ok). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom, sorry I didn't realise that this was an existing article. I suggest merging the two, to prevent WP:FORK. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom is currently a redirect to the page under discussion, hence why I was pointing that it was unsuitable as a merge target (since it exists as an unhelpful blue link redirect...). Removing the list and moving the article to that title would be an option, but I think that's outside the scope of AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Good list article and as valuable and appropriate as all the other list articles on Wikipedia including a few dozen "List of fatal..." articles. Each entry has a citation. Topic as a whole and as a list is notable because numerous statistics and studies have been published analysing fatal dog attacks (including what kind of dog and how it happened), and the subject is openly discussed in the news and is documented in legislative sessions. Fatalities are so unusual that each news article will mention the last time such a fatality happened in their area. Other related articles cover more of those fatality studies, such as in Fatal dog attacks. It looks like there are a series of articles which ought to have a template to tie them together. I added a study to the article that applies to Europe and UK. Improve the article rather than delete it. Platonk (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2021 (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.