Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States

Guidelines for Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States

Standardization of breed names

Please use these guidelines to help keep breed names accurate, consistent, and organized. Currently, the main page contains a variety of different formats (capitalizations, hyphenations, and sometimes spellings) for breed names. For example, the Labrador Retriever is capitalized in a variety of ways including: Labrador Retriever, Labrador retriever, and labrador retriever. While there are a number of different suggested ways to capitalize and hyphenate breed names, the recommendation of this guideline is to follow the format that the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club use which is to capitalize all names in a breed name, for example: Labrador Retriever. In the case of mixed breeds, the format is also to capitalize all breed names but not the word "mix", for example: Labrador Retriever-Husky mix. In the case of pit bulls, since "pit bull" is not a proper breed but a dog type (a category of dog consisting of at least 4 breeds as listed on the pit bull Wikipedia page), the proper way to capitalize pit bull is with both names lowercase: pit bull (unless it is the first word in a sentence, or it appears as the beginning word(s) in a list/column, then it would be: Pit bull and "bull" should not be capitalized). If one of the proper pit bull breeds is identified, then all of the names in the breed name would be capitalized (like any other proper breed), for example: American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. If the number of dogs involved in an attack is more than one, for consistency it should be listed as: Breed (2). For example, if two German Shepherd dogs are involved, then it would be listed as German Shepherds (2).

Examples of breed name format, as recommended:

• Labrador Retriever
• Labrador Retriever mix
• Labrador Retriever-Husky mix
• Doberman Pinscher
• American Pit Bull Terrier
• pit bull
• pit bull mix
• mixed breed dog
• pack of dogs

Examples if two dogs of the same or mixed breed are involved in an attack, as recommended:

• German Shepherds (2)
• Doberman Pinschers (2)
• mixed breed dogs (2)
• pack of dogs (2)
• pit bulls (2)
• Doberman Pinschers (2), German Shepherds (2), pit bull mixes (2)

Identification of breed(s) involved in incidents

The dog breed(s) or dog type(s) identified in the "Category of Dog" field should match the breed information provided in a news or law enforcement source. In the case that there is a variance (or disagreement) of the breed(s) involved in one or several news sources, then both breeds should be listed in the "Category of Dog" field. For example, if one news source describes the dog as a "mixed breed dog" and another news source describes the dog as a "Mastiff", then the "Category of Dog" field should include both descriptions as: "Mastiff or mixed breed dog". In this case, both news sources should be provided as references - one source to substantiate the breed as a "Mastiff" and the second source to substantiate the breed as a "mixed breed dog".

Note: In the case that a dog's description includes multiple (three more) breeds, then by definition it is a mixed breed dog and should be listed as a "mixed breed dog" in the "Category" field; however, the various breeds (if known) can be described in the "Circumstances" field.

After investigation, sometimes there is a final issued statement about the breed. In such an instance, the breed column should be corrected. The various earlier mentioned breeds MAY be noted in the circumstances, but should NOT be left remaining in the breed column.

Needs sources

I am removing the following section as it consists of items that need a source or better source. As noted by another editor: These cases need more research and better sources before entering the yearly sections. All information provided needs a reliable source.

All deaths here are from https://dogsbite.org

Day[s]	Victim	Dog[s]	How/when they died
May 10, 2005	Lorinze Reddings, 42, male	Pit bull mix [2]
July 1, 2005	Boyd W. Fiscus, 83, male	American bulldog [2], Neapolitan mastif [1], Border collie [1]	Dead on scene
July 25, 2006	Mariah Puga, 3, female	Pit bull, rottweiler	Died at hospital
July 27, 2006	Jimmie McConnell, 71, female	Pit bulls [2]	Undetermined
August 18, 2006	Shawna Willey, 30, female	Presa canario	Dead on scene
November 3, 2006	John Matthew Davis, 10, male	Pit bull mix [6]	Declared dead on scene
November 4, 2006	Allen Young, 1, male	Pit bull [4]	November 5, 2006
January 24, 2007	Matthew Logan Johnson, 6, Male	Rottweilers [2]	Undetermined
February 16, 2007	Robynn Banks, 2.	Pit bull mix, mastiff mix	Dead on scene
August 16, 2007	Zachary King Jr, 7, male	Pit bull	Dead on scene
November 6, 2007	Seth Lovitt, 11, Male	Pit bull	Died at hospital
December 17, 2007	Blanche Brodeur, 76, female	Pit bull	Declared Dead ON Scene
May 14, 2008	Julian Slack, 3, Male	Pit bull	Declared dead at hospital
May 18, 2008	Tanner Monk, 7, male	Pit bull [4]	Dead on scene
September 23, 2008	Katya Todesco, 5, Female	Pit bull mix	September 26, 2008
November 26, 2008	Alexander Adams, 2, male	Pit bull mix	Killed before first responders arrived
June 27, 2009	Gabrial Mandrell-Sauerhage, 3, male	Pit bull mix [2], Collie mix [1]	Undetermined
November 24, 2009	Karen Gillespie, 53, female	Boxer mix	Nov 25, 2009
October 13, 2010	Reverend John Reynolds, 84, male	Pit bull [17]	Dead on scene
November 9, 2010	Shirley Bird, 79, female	German Shepherd	Dead on scene
November 10, 2010	Kaden Muckleroy, 2, male	Pit bull	Undetermined
April 28, 2014	Jessica Norman, 33, female	Pit bull [3]	Discovered dead
May 4, 2014	Nyhiem Wilfong, 1, male	Rottweiler	Died at hospital

Rublamb (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I created that, but i'm not mad. CComp542Veraion19 (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — CComp542Veraion19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

Which events to include

I think it would be a good idea to set some criteria to be included in the list. My suggestion is to limit the list to fatalities 1) coveaged in a major newspaper, national newspaper, or national magazine 2) media coverage outside the immediate area of the incident 3) impacted laws or legislation 4) involved famous or notable people Rublamb (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

On the AfD, another editor suggested that we include every death caused by a dog. I am responding here to encourage discussion. Although each death is tragic, not every death is notable. Would we, for example, create a list of every person who dies from cancer or a heart attack? Of course not! However, we can include those deaths by finding reliable sources that track annual totals and demographics. The intro for the already article already does this, noting gender, age, totals, and most common dog types involved in these deaths. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not, therefore, cover every single thing that happens. By sticking to the guidelines for notability and reliability, we not only ensure that the content is accurate and without an agenda (bias), but that it is also appropiate for Wikipedia. I believe this will also stop the cycle of AfD which plague this article. Rublamb (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:LISTCRIT only requires the criteria for inclusion in the list be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Listing every fatality caused by a dog that can be verified in reliable sources seems like a more objective set of criteria than having to adjudicate what is a "major newspaper, national newspaper, or national magazine," what is "outside the immediate area of the incident," whether a specific attack impacted a a law, or whether someone involved is "famous or notable." Regardless, consensus on the criteria should be achieved here before rewriting the list. -- JFHutson (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jfhutson: I put a significant amount of time into the deleted content, reviewing the sources, formatting it into columns, and copy editing. I also appreciate the effort that went into finding and adding that content. However, I made a strategic decision to update the article to save it from deletion and end the AfD. If you read through the current AfD, there are many comments about the list not being notable. In my experience, that is the death of an article, more often than not. I believe they are relying on WP:NLIST, which says, "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." One translation is: that if the group of items in the list is not notable, the article is not notable. I am not saying that I agree but it does seem to be how WP:NLIST is being interpreted here and in other AfDs. By presenting a revised list that is notable with reliable sources, we should be able to get through the AfD or a deletion review. Then, we can revise the other content, using WP:NLISTITEM which clearly supports your position that the entire list does not need to be notable. Once we are through the AfD, I can easily revert my edits so that we can review the other content and discuss. Rublamb (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like your purpose is to convince editors at the AfD to preserve the list. You could do that by taking your version of the list (which is preserved here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States&oldid=1217983682, and you could copy it into userspace if you wanted to edit further) and presenting it in the AfD to convince editors and the closer that the problem is not notability, but LISTCRIT. I disagree with that argument, but you could make it without unilaterally changing the LISTCRIT of the mainspace list. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jfhutson: There are many ways to go about editing an article. "Bodly go" is one that most Wikipedians endorse, especially when time is of the essence. Right now, the deletionist's argument is that 1) the list is not notable 2) people are adding non-notable events to push their bias 3) the latter is so bad that this article will never be able to meet neutrality and should, therefore, not receive any consideration for inclusion. That is a pretty strong argument that is backed by the discovery of editors who only work on this article.

With the additions I have seen in the past few days, #2 does seem to be the case. Why are fatalities of nameless people from minor publications being added when other events in major newspapers or with national coverage are excluded? Why are people saying the dog was a pitbull when the source does not say that? Why did someone say that the breeds were unknown when this info was in the sources but was not pitbull? I am not saying that all content is bad but there is a lot to ponder. By restoring the content in question, you are helping to prove #3—that editors are not willing to critically look at the content and question its role in the article. I have no expectation that the AfD editors will review multiple versions of the article to "vote" between the two versions. That is way beyond the scope of an AfD. Furthermore, I have already posted to the AfD so many times that I suspect I will be accused of bombing. At this point, it is what it is. I have expressed my opinion and concerns. Rublamb (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I just disagree that the right way to deal with these concerns is to make a tighter criteria (or to delete an obviously notable list). I don't think the proposed LISTCRIT is workable. It's trying to come up with a "notability" criteria wider than WP:N (since I think there are very few if any WP notable fatal dog attacks) but narrower than a verifiable event. Maybe there's a narrower workable set of criteria, but for the reasons I mentioned (mainly subjectivity) I don't think there is.-- JFHutson (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I do a lot of work with lists. Many have the criteria of components being notable, which is why I am making this suggestion. Based on the sample we have here, somewhere between 10 to 20 percent of deaths each year receive enough coverage to be notable. Rublamb (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Some do, many don't. For example, List of libraries in Connecticut in the 18th century (not an atypical list). -- JFHutson (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree but it comes down to the subject of the list. Libraries are frequently the subject of Wikipedia articles; therefore, everything on that list has the potential to be notable. That is not the case when you are talking about every death in the US by dog bite. A closer match might be to look at the list of alumni for a college or notable people fom a city. Not eveyone who graduates from the college is noteable, just as not everyone from a city is notable. Instead, those lists are curated for notability based on the presence of Wikipedia articles or sources that prove notability according to community standards. Note that the guidelines for such lists are often posted in the WP's area and not in the article's talk page.

Also, there is a difference between an article existing and it being able to survive an AfD. In my experience, deletionists win more often than not with list articles, especially when the content is not linked to Wikipedia articles. Rublamb (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think there is just one article linked from this list? Ada Clare -- JFHutson (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jfhutson: Remember, part of determining notability is the potential for an article, not just having an article. In this case, is it more likely than not that sources exist to create an article? As a former member of WP Libraries, I have reviewed many articles on libraries in Wikipedia. Rublamb (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to thank both of you (and other editors) for your efforts to keep the list from being deleted.  The list has also been greatly improved, I've seen.

I can understand Rublamb's thought process. However, my view on notability is different. The topic is notable and not every single case has to be noteable in my view. That's why I still propose to accept every case (Cases from local newspapers or local press releases from hospitals). But if it is decided otherwise I would accept that too.

I think this list could be absolutely perfect and it would still be proposed for deletion. Unfortunately, luck will decide which admin makes the deletion decision. Wikigrund (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I just really doubt there are enough items for this list that are Wikipedia notable to be of interest to readers. Almost all of them are likely NEWS, which doesn't mean we can't have a list, for all the reasons I've argued in the deletion discussion, but it also means we can't claim they're notable individually. -- JFHutson (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at the list as it currently stands. I have added numerous fatal attacks found in major/national publications, representing many different years. For example, the 19th and 20th century sections have significantly more items than the original list. All of the events meet the criteria that I have proposed. There are plenty more that can be added, but it is not worth the effort until the AfD discussion is completed. But I wanted to give both you and the AfD detractors a sense of what this article could be with some selection criteria. Many of these fatalities do, in fact, have enough significant coverage to qualify for a stand-alone article. However, the Wikipedia criteria I am applying is significant coverage.

I understand your desire to generate a comprehensive list, but that is probably beyond the scope of Wikipedia for this type of topic. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive study of topics. If there is an external source that has a more complete list of attacks, that can be an External Link. Note that External Links can go to websites that may not be suitable for article sources. So, if people want more details, they can follow that link. Rublamb (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you think any would survive an AfD? Coverage in major newspapers is not enough WP:NOTNEWS. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The aspect of WP:NOTNEWS that was previously applicable was the indiscriminate inclusion of information in the list. News coverage is allowed in Wikipedia but is supposed to be notable and represent significant coverage. Meaning, just because an item is in a newspaper does not mean it is Wikipedia-worthy. By limiting the list to events with significant coverage, that issue is resolved. Note that magazines are also sources for the article, not just newspapers. In addition to looking for more coverage in major magazines, books and journals would also be helpful additions toward building notability of this topic. Rublamb (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit hard for me as a lot of time was spent researching the cases. But I would accept the new criteria so that the list is not deleted.

Quote JFHutson: "I just really doubt there are enough items for this list that are Wikipedia notable to be of interest to readers." [...]

I think there are still enough notable items and the list will be useful for readers and researchers. (I'm still of the opinion that a list that includes every death would be more balanced and a better reference work.)

An encyclopedia entry is not meant to entertain or please the masses, it is much more a tool to collect and preserve information and make it accessible for future users. Wikigrund (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the whole issue needs to be solved on a higher level, since this problem also arises with other lists. It would be good to have certainty that the work editors put in this sort of lists is not in vain.

For example: Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States

A quote from the talk page: "The notability issue came up when the lists were first being created in 2011 and some editors were wanting to delete the entire topic. The moderator deemed that while individual entries did not meet the notability criteria to justify a stand-alone article, the lists themselves were sufficiently notable. This did not come up at the time, but to require every entry in a list to be individually notable would be analogous to requiring every paragraph in an article to be notable. Of course that is not the requirement because the individual paragraphs support the article as a whole, which itself should be notable.

While the Washington Post database has tremendous value and is much closer to being comprehensive, the entries in these lists provide a narrative context that is often missing from the data in the WaPo database.

So, while the incompleteness of the lists does cause some confusion, I too object to them being dropped. LUOF (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikigrund (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikigrund: I actually agree with you that not every entry in a list has to be notable. However, I have found myself in the minority opinion when it comes to AfD discussions on this topic. Over time, I have decided that what I think as an individual editor doesn't really matter; rather, it is more helpful to understand how the admins and senior editors interpret the guidelines (that they wrote). Consider that some list articles only include items/people with Wikipedia articles; this strict interpretation is a common practice for long lists. In this case, just to include the attacks of the past 100 years would be at least 7,000 items. If it weren't such a contentious topic that seems to attract inexperienced editors, it might not have surfaced as a problem. Assuming good faith of all involved, my hope was to steer editors toward a reasonable solution. As an inclusionist, I hope this article can be saved. Rublamb (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Was there a reason this[1] was removed from the list? I didn't see concensus reached on this new criteria list.

This is a list of Fatal Dog attacks in the United State. Not a list of Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States that meant some vague criteria of "national attention". It should list them all, or none. the attack was notable to a region, as documented by a news report.

I am also highly skeptical of your claim that it will reduce bias. It actually aims to increase the bias. With including every attack, people can not like the list, but they can't criticize it for being incomplete, or made with bias in any way. Once you start omitting information, bias can creep in. Does news report on certain attacks in a bias manner, was the criteria to determine eligibility created with bias?

The AfD issue isn't with what the criteria is for something to be on the list. At least not from what I read, so I don't see how this would address the concerns there. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Also per, WP:LSC "Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources". Seems like arbitrary criteria.

In addition, "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists". Which, I think we can all agree on, this is a narrow list.

Lastly, "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Before creating a stand-alone list, consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a "parent" article..." I think we can all agree not every entry deserves its own article. It seems having lists without every entry being notable is an acceptable practice. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, something that is only regionally important with just local news coverage is typically not notable or worthy of inclusion. A list like this is not necessarily narrow in focus because it is national in scope, making it potentially quite long. Lists that are long and/or overrun with non-notable entries frequently specify notability as a criterion. WP:LISTN notes "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." Since this list could potentially include more than 13,000 entries for time period covered, my suggestion is not vague but common practice, based on community definitions for notability. Currently, there are entries on the list with their own Wikipedia article and others that would merit an article; this equals notability according to Wikipedia. As someone who actively edits and creates list articles, I assure you that many such articles include only notable items or only items with a Wikipedia article. Why does this matter in this instance? Because editor bias is a huge part of this AfD. As one editor who messaged me noted, some editors were adding every locally covered pit bull attack, ignoring attacks by other breeds that had national coverage. In addition, some of the sources used were questionable, according to Wikipedia's reliability guidelines. Reminding all editors that Wikipedia is about notability and reliability seems to me to be the ideal solution when confronting this type of issue. Rublamb (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

If editors cannot be relied upon to make a reliable list involving all dog fatalities with modern tools like Google search, then that's more reason to remove it as it's an article written for POV. If not every fatality is going to be listed, then the very least, the name should be changed to "nationally publicized dog fatalities" or something similar to avoid misleading the reader. Because as named, one would expect a list of all dog related fatalities. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Most people know that an encyclopedia provides a summary or overview, and is not the most comprehensive souce on a subject. In the old days, if you went to World Book encyclopedia, would you expect it to include every single person killed in World War II? Or every person who graduated from Yale? Or every person from New York City? Wikipedia may not have the space limitations of a printed book, but it is still an encyclopedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia's article naming guidelines are well established, such as List of Yale University people or List of people from New York City for notable people within those categories. No reasonable person would expect those list to include every single person eligible for those subjects. In case someone is confused, the article's lede specifically says it is a list of notable attacks. Rublamb (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with a page that we know is used for WP:Advocacy. I think the difference between them is that no one is using a lost for Yale to push an agenda one way or another. We can agree to disagree. I will note, the article right now appears to have several regional attacks in it, so it doesn't reflect accuracy to "notable attacks". So it still has editing work to do to get it to this new criteria, if concensus is reached on that. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Advocacy, bias, and the promotion of personal agendas are not unique to this article. Universities and/or their alumni frequently try to groom articles as a way to advertise. There is a tag for "academic boosterism" that can be placed at the top of an article. In reverse, people who dislike a specific college will add negative content (just dealing with a discussion on this yesterday, trying to determine if something is news vs. notable). With regards to university-related list articles, what university or alumni want to acknowledge an association with serial murderers, rapists, or infamous drug lords? Yet, these are often notable alumni with a Wikipedia article. A huge issue is that non-notable people will add their names to an alumni list for self-promotion; as a result, these lists are often limited to those with a Wikipedia article, regardless of the number of findable sources.

Concerning the current content of the article, I know of one item that only has local coverage and/or is not sourced to a major or national news outlet. The exception was added yesterday, and the editor asked for its consideration because the event resulted in a court case and a new ordinance regarding euthanizing animals. Other editors have found better sources (national coverage) and have restored previously removed content. If you know of items that fail the test for significant coverage, please share here for discussion or remove them so the article can be improved. Rublamb (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Look, billions of human and dog interactions happen each year in the United States. About 40 people die from them. They are all outliers and notable. You are trying to compare it to Yales graduation which thousands graduate each year. If you can't see the fallacy of false analogy being used to support your notion that national news media is what determines notable, then so be it. Perhaps others will, or not.

If an outlier was documented, it's an outlier that should be included on the list. Trying to decide on which outlier is notable just because news outlets are a business that sell stories their consumers want, doesn't make the ones that they didn't sell any less notable. They're all staticital outliers, picking and choosing which ones are worthy to include just makes the list less reliable in its goal, which is to document these outlining events. Well, at least that should be the goal, but whether that was really it's goal is another topic. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually not everyone who graduates from a college is notable, just as not all deaths are notable. Tragic, but not notable. There is an actual equivalency here because Wikipedia's content policy applies to all topics and all contributors. Just being in a local newspaper does not make something encylopedic; this is not a case of "picking and choosing" but rather looking critically at content based on established guidelines for reliability, significant coverage, and notability. I get that you are very passionate about this topic; however, please consider that your passion makes you biased regarding this article and topic. If I were the only editor who had concerns, I would never have gotten involved and would have stepped asside a long time ago. I have tried to help not only as an inclusionist but also as an active member of WP Lists who is neutral regarding this subject matter. In the meantime, I am unclear if you have ever contributed to this article or if you are posting here with a second account. Rublamb (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I articulated my point poorly, but i agree. Not everyone that graduates is notable. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of graduates a year. Nothing notable about it. However, there are only about 40/year that die from a dog a attack out of billions of interactions. It is notable because of the extreme rarety of the situation. There are more grammy awards handed out each year than people that die to a dog. The rareness of an occurrence makes it notable, which is why news report on it. Id also like to add, this bias towards national media makes absolute no sense to guage the depth of audience. Today, local news pops up on aggregates that reach a global audience. I think we all have seen it and read local news reports to an area we dont belong.

Secondly, someone can have an opinion on a topic and still have valid arguements against your position. People can recongize their bias and make sure that their position is rooted in fact and evidence. Discounting my position due to "bias" is a weak position and does nothing to address the points brought up. It just serves as a red herring or way to reinforce ones beliefs as to why someone doesn't accept their position. I don't believe I have shown any reason to suspect my bias plays into my arguments. Maybe it has, ill let others nuetral decide their own.

Lastly, more people die to cows each year and there are news national/global news outlets that cover the stories. However, no one is lining up to make a list documenting those incidents, despite their notability based on your criteria. Perhaps that may be because their isnt a faction of people that exists out there without an agenda that uses Wikipedias noriety as a way to push their agenda on a topic one way or the other? I don't know, it just seems its clear this falls under WP:ADVOCACY. At least I have seem several other "unbiased editors" express the same concerns with the article.

Anyways, its been nice discussing this with you. Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I already replied to this; I do support your proposal and it does address most of the concerns I originally had. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2024

List of fatal dog attacks in the United States → Fatal dog attacks in the United States – Following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (3rd nomination), concerns about the content of the page might be alleviated by a suggestion made in the discussion to move this to the non-list title proposed here, which already redirects to this title, allowing the focus of the article to be on the phenomenon, and the list to be incidental to this. BD2412 T 02:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: Credit where credit is due; the move proposal was made by KoA (framed as a merge proposal for reasons further explained in the discussion, though there is technically not an existing merge topic at the suggested title). BD2412 T 02:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: Dogs WikiProject notified: [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support as I proposed at the linked AfD. I'll try to get time to comment further later if needed, but as mentioned there, the topic itself is notable, but not necessarily as a list topic. Focusing on how sources summarize the overall subject, especially in prose would help ground this subject. A list/table could be maintained at the new target, but it would need to be justified more rather than relying on WP:INDISCRIMINATE use of sources. Right now, the list exists here as an artifact of this being a list article, so treating the subject as a regular article would let the entire subject be handled in a WP:DUE manner.

Part of this also involves the tensions with WP:NLIST that keep bringing this list article back to AfD repeatedly. The move would ideally break the back of that issue and put it in a place where it ideally wouldn't be back at AfD again on top of the above I mentioned. KoA (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Just adding on that I came in as an outside commenter at the AfD, so I don't really have a horse in the race on the subject.

The whole point of the move though is that the topic is beyond being a list and becomes pigeonholed being trying to keep it in a list article along with the more ancillary list maintenance issues. Let the secondary sources that do address US specific issues do the summarizing of the subject so it can be covered expansively as a regular article. That's the opposite of "backdoor deletion" as comments have misattributed below, especially considering I was not a delete vote at the AfD. Regardless of it dealing with controversial topics, editors at the page can figure out what is WP:DUE after a move without being limited by only being a list article. KoA (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to summarize the focus behind this move now that I can sit down on it for a bit, this is a WP:PAG-focused move. The previous AfD (and ones before that) have repeatedly been closed as no consensus that this satisfied WP:NLIST, not keep. There was not consensus for deletion either, so we're past of the point of arguing the page should be kept as-is. The time for that would have been justifying a straight keep at AfD.

Instead we're left figuring out what needs to be done to address that lack of clear notability for the list topic, and that is the starting point. This proposal is just meant as a bare minimum to alleviate the notability problem that comes with this recurrently coming to AfD along with allowing the topic to be fully described. Functionally, this is just a title change that let's the article be expanded to include additional narrative, especially from secondary sources.

Fatal_dog_attacks would be the other potential home for this, but since it sounds like this content was partly split out from there at one point, that wouldn't be a likely home for this article. If you look at that article though, there is a lot of content on the United States. Between the AfD and what you can already read at the fatal dog attacks article, it's pretty clear dog attacks in the US is a notable subject. Functionally, this move would make this a general article that could be expanded rather than a restricted list article. If someone thinks the general topic still isn't notable after the move, I supposed they could bring the new article to AfD, but deletion seems even less likely in that case than in this current list article because notability of the general topic would be even clearer in terms of scope.

There have been WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments about other list articles on dog attacks, but that is irrelevant. We're concerned about the topic at hand, not what other conventions other articles have used. That Fatal_dog_attacks#United_States_of_America exists means that article would function as a parent article, and the proposed move target would act as a child article in terms of WP:SPLIT. We set up function child articles all the time when topic titles are split out like that, so the existence of the parent article isn't a reason against the move. If anything, the original split from the global article going straight to a list article instead of a general one has caused problems we're somewhat locked into compared to if it had just started out as as general article. KoA (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is part of a series of articles with the same naming configuration, including List of fatal dog attacks in Austria, List of fatal dog attacks in Canada, List of fatal dog attacks in Germany, List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom, and List of fatal dog attacks. Since naming conventions favor uniformity to make it easier to find information, retaining the current name makes the most sense. Also, the reasons given for the move do not fall under those listed on WP:MOVE. Rather, is a back-door way to delete much of the article's content after an inconclusive AfD (I am not saying this is the motive of the nominator but that its outcome would be the same based KOA's comments from the AfD). Finally, the main reason this article has had many AfD is pro and anti-pit bull bias, not whether or not it meets WP:LIST. Changing the article's name is not going to make the factions go away. Rublamb (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per KoA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that this feels like a backdoor to deletion. We already have the article Fatal dog attacks, and it does not seem to me that the coverage of the phenomenon of fatal dog attacks in the US specifically is distinct or voluminous enough that it can't be contained in that broader article. Colin M (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  You are correct that a narrative article already exists. It appears that this topic started with the article you mention, Fatal dog attacks. That led to List of fatal dog attacks. As that article grew longer, some countries were split off into new list articles, including this article. Rublamb (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with KoA. I also feel that a regular page is better suited as a way to cover this information, than is a list. In other words, I think of "fatal dog attacks in the US" as a phenomenon, as opposed to a set of events, because there can be context to one attack, in a way that differs from some other attack. (Sometimes, it might be primarily breed-related, whereas other times, it may be primarily related to human behavior, and there's nothing encyclopedic about oversimplifying that.) I have no concerns about lack of notability, nor about notability or content forking in regards to having a standalone page for a single nation, especially given the size of the topic area. I also want to say that, for me, I do not in any way see this as a prelude to deletion, because I do believe that this is a suitable topic for a standalone page, and I would oppose page deletion (just as I endorsed keeping the list page). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  The question really isn't should there be a regular page or a list article, but what is the correct name for this article as it stands. Rublamb (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  The proposed move is based on the assumption that – of course! – the page would be revised accordingly. Otherwise, all requested moves between list space and article space would default to "not possible". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  And I hope that whoever closes this discounts the WP:ABF arguments that those who support the rename and rewrite are just trying via some sooper-seecret conspiracy to get the page deleted. I don't see anyone here arguing that the topic isn't notable as a list. The argument is that it's more encyclopedic to present it as plain text. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  KOA said "the topic itself is notable, but not necessarily as a list topic." Even if an article would be more encyclopedic, nothing is stopping anyone from writing Fatal dog attacks in the United States and keeping the list separate. We have Primates and a List of primates, for example. I don't think that's a good idea, because I disagree about it being "more encyclopedic" to write an article on this topic, but the point is that it is not a good argument for moving the page when it has already been established at the AfD that this is a notable list topic. -- JFHutson (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  KoA said that in the context of making this a regular page would make the perennial AfD arguments about notability go away, not in the context of setting the page up for a fall. And I'm supporting the change as someone who commented "keep" for the list at the AfD. These aren't attempts to delete the list page. They are attempts to improve it. And they aren't attempts to argue that the subject isn't notable, no matter how hard some editors try to find an ulterior motive. It's worth noting what the AfD close, [3], actually said. No consensus to delete, but also no consensus against changing it from a list to a regular page. My argument above is that "I think of "fatal dog attacks in the US" as a phenomenon, as opposed to a set of events, because there can be context to one attack, in a way that differs from some other attack. (Sometimes, it might be primarily breed-related, whereas other times, it may be primarily related to human behavior, and there's nothing encyclopedic about oversimplifying that.)" Your counter-argument is simply "I disagree about it being "more encyclopedic" to write an article on this topic". Your example about the list of primates actually supports my argument. Individual species of primates are elements in a set of all primates. We typically have standalone pages for all such species. Individual fatal dog attacks that happened in the US are not so much elements in a larger set, but examples of a larger phenomenon. Each individual attack does not necessarily merit a standalone page about it. The individual list elements are not all-inclusive, and a list format is less useful than regular text for contextualizing the significance or the best way to understand each attack. The list is organized primarily by date, as though the date is the most informative thing to know about each attack – yet it makes more sense to give more attention to the role of breed characteristics versus the role of how humans interact with dogs. And there is no reason not to have an embedded list within a regular page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  The topic List of fatal dog attacks in the United States is either notable or it's not, and article content does not determine notability. The closer should not have noted some kind of consensus on content when the discussion was (or should have been) about notability and WP:NOT. A requested move is also not the right way to change the content of an article, but at least we're getting closer, and I'll continue to explain why the article should remain a list. Individual dog attacks are elements in the set of dog attacks. I'm not sure how the fact that they have different contexts from one another is relevant. I'm not sure how being examples of a larger phenomenon is relevant either. Homicides in California are also examples of a larger phenomenon. List elements do not have to be notable. As for the organization of the list, that's another content decision that could go several ways. I don't think it's a bad presentation. The most important thing about each list element isn't always the way you organize a list. Organizing it by breed doesn't seem workable since some were several dogs, or an unknown breed, and organizing by how humans interact with dogs would be subjective. -- JFHutson (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you still acting like I'm arguing that the subject isn't notable? When you say that it's just a set, the same way that primate species are elements of a set, I feel like you are just saying the opposite of what I say, without engaging with why I said it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  OK, let's forget about notability for a minute. You linked to the article sets, which talks about a set as a collection of different things. Are you saying that there is no collection of different dog attacks in the US, which can be considered together? Would this apply to all the Lists of animal fatalities? -- JFHutson (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Here's what I actually said: "In other words, I think of "fatal dog attacks in the US" as a phenomenon, as opposed to a set of events, because there can be context to one attack, in a way that differs from some other attack." You can caricature that as having been something else, that I claimed that there can be no such thing as a collection of different dog attacks, but it's not what I've been saying. Once again, my point is that it is more useful, and more nuanced, to examine this "collection" as parts of a phenomenon. One can write about how secondary sources put this collection of events into context. Would it apply to any list of animal fatalities? That depends on what the list is about. It depends on the amount of context that the source material says is involved in those fatalities. There are plenty of reliable sources about how dogs, as domesticated animals, interact with humans in ways that influence aggression. Tapeworms are animals that also kill humans, but reliable sources treat that very differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am really honestly trying to understand the argument and I apologize that I'm failing and that my attempts may have felt like I was caricaturing, which was not my intent. I don't agree that it is necessarily more useful to display a discussion of fatal dog attacks in the US than a list of such. I think that both could be useful, depending on what the reader is looking for, and our readers should be allowed to find the list if they so desire, since we've decided it's a notable list topic. So we could have Fatal dog attacks in the United States as a separate article while keeping this list (with a summary style link to the list). You wouldn't need a consensus here to create such an article; the burden would shift to someone who wanted to AfD Fatal dog attacks in the United States. -- JFHutson (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  OK, I appreciate that, and that's something I'm happy to work with. At this point, I think it's best for me to flesh out what I would want to do, in the event that this move request gains consensus and I were to try to revise this page. As I've previously said, I am in favor of keeping a list, as an embedded list within the new page. As I see how strongly you and some other editors feel about preserving the existing list, I'm coming to the conclusion that the existing list would remain, as it is now, on the revised page. So the list that you and some other editors care strongly about would be preserved. What would happen is essentially an expansion of what is now the lead section of the list page, followed by a section containing the list. Initially, I might copy, with attribution, some content from other pages. But then, I would want to expand the text with content about dog breeds and the relationship with aggression towards humans, and with content about dog behavior in relation to humans, and perhaps some about US laws that are relevant. So the main way it would change the page is that there would be some new sections, of regular text, between the lead and the section containing the list. In terms of content, there would be more attention to the interplay between dog breeding over time, how dog breeds have been regarded in the US in terms of propensity to violence, and how human conduct influences dog aggression towards humans. Obviously, I would be looking to add source material that is US-specific.

  So with that understanding, the choice is between having two pages, as you just described, with one consisting of the list and the other consisting of what I'm proposing to come before the list – or having both those things on one page, as the move proposal here would do. I would argue in favor of a single page, because there would be less duplication, and because the list has more value when readers can read about the context on the same page, without having to click to a separate page. In addition, that would go a long way towards discouraging yet more AfDs for the list page, because the additional secondary sources would contradict the arguments made by users wanting to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I want to echo some of this about AfDs too. Whether folks like it or not, the last AfD was closed as no consensus. There wasn't an obvious case made for list topic notability to outright keep, but enough said on notability that it wasn't outright delete either. The standalone list topic has its tensions with WP:NLIST as I mentioned at AfD, but once you include it under the broader umbrella of a regular article, those notability issues largely go away and it becomes much more "defendable" from AfD.

  Had the article been closed as keep, these arguments for a move would be less weighty and it would be much easier to say just leave this list article as-is. Repeatedly failing to clearly establish notability though means work like this move is needed to address the structural problem that would not be going away otherwise. KoA (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and all of this is coming from a place of wanting the page to be good, and not from a place of wanting to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Assuming good faith, I have never intended to say that anyone is doing anything other than trying make the page better (even those who wish to delete I assume do so out of a desire to make the encyclopedia better). When I say a backdoor deletion attempt, it's because a decision has been reached on whether a standalone list on this list topic will exist on an NLIST basis, and the requested move is attempting to make the article not be about that list topic. Remember that "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article," so no change to content (turning this list into an article) should change the notability of the topic "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States." WP:ARTN "No consensus" is reached all the time and allows subjects (including list topics) to continue to be covered by articles on WP. -- JFHutson (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  it's because a decision has been reached on whether a standalone list on this list topic will exist on an NLIST basis. Except no such decision was made. The AfD was not closed as keep, but as no consensus. When a subject cannot establish it's notability repeatedly, that's when there are structural problems to address that rarely result in just leaving the article as-is. Since you cite WP:ARTN, that lack clear notability is going to remain because it's a fundamental issue, not something based on what exists in the article at a given time. KoA (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for saying that. I feel like those comments created a poisoning the well effect already in terms of what I actually said, and you hit the nail on the head with These aren't attempts to delete the list page. They are attempts to improve it. That's why I talked about issues with pigeonholing above and it being too restrictive on the topic. I've been talking about expanding the page to a regular article strengthening the case for notability. KoA (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe (per Colin M) that a Fatal dog attacks article already exists; in addition, I should point out that article already has a substantial Fatal dog attacks#United States of America subsection discussing various studies on fatal dog attacks in the United States.

Furthermore, I believe (per Rublamb) that renaming the stand-alone list so that it matches the nomenclature of an "article" will have the likely effect of it being deleted since the criteria that allow it to exist as a stand-alone list will no longer apply if is re-labelled as a Wikipedia article. If the renamed article does survive, it will likely be confused with the Fatal dog attacks#United States of America subsection.

Bottom line: If an article is a list, then its title should include "List of...."

If someone really wants an article on "Fatal dog attacks in the United States", just extract the existing Fatal dog attacks#United States of America section into its own article with a reference to this standalone list of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Astro$01 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the proposal assumes the list page would be revised into regular text format. There's nothing wrong with having a summary-style section at the other page, with the main page here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

No one has volunteered to convert this list article into a text article. It seems like you are agreeing to a name change based on an unfounded assumption. In contrast, there are numerous editors actively engaged in creating and updating the content of the current list article. There is nothing wrong with having a list article––this is allowed by Wikipedia and is considered a valuable information format. Rublamb (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I volunteer to help, if there is consensus for the move. And I see it as having an embedded list within the page. I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with having a list article. That's why I argued "keep" at the AfD. The point is that the change would be better, not that the list is unacceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: the AfD determined that the topic satisfies NLIST. This is an attempt at a backdoor deletion. It is possible to write a separate article on the topic, but the current list is manifestly a list, it has been determined to be notable as a list, and it should be named as such. If you are arguing in this move discussion that the list topic is not notable, then you are making an argument for deletion. --JFHutson (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: I also see this as just another backdoor deletion attempt. There is no need to deprive Wikipedia readers of this data and the naming of these kinds of lists should remain consistent, clearly specifying "List of". See List of fatal shark attacks in the United States or List of fatal bear attacks in North America to consider two other lists of fatal attacks that have nothing to do with dogs. The individual details of the attacks are interesting in themselves and could be used to generate maps, timelines, and other data summaries. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Those two examples of other list pages are different, because dogs are domesticated animals, whereas sharks and bears, well, are not. The nuances over things like breed characteristics and dog-human interactions are very significant matters to cover in content about dogs, but are irrelevant to sharks or bears. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Consistancy in naming articles is about ease of finding information, not about nuanced differences in their content. But even if you are right, what about the five other articles that are about dog attacks that will still have the naming configuration? Rublamb (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Really? Both lists include species information and information on the bear/shark-human interactions. I am again struggling to comprehend your argument. -- JFHutson (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, really. As for the other list pages about dog attacks in other parts of the world, WP:OTHERSTUFF. We have tons of reliable sourcing about dogs having been domesticated by humans, and having complex interactions with humans that have significance for aggression towards humans, for millennia. Can you show me similar source material about bears and sharks having been domesticated to a similar extent? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFF applies when discussing whether or not an article should exist. This is about the best name for an article as it currently exists. The articles on dog attacks in other countries are relevant to this discussion because they all are secondary articles of List of fatal dog attacks, split off when the main list article became too long. WP:CONSISTENT clearly says, "We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical." I suggest you create the article you propose and, then, come back with a merger proposal. That way, everyone can clearly see what you have in mind. Rublamb (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's about the best name for the page, not the best name assuming that the page is going to stay as it currently exists. If we're going to suggest what one another should do, then I'll suggest that you re-read what I said here: [4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I made my suggestion not to be snarky, but based on your stated goals (which are fine with me). As far as I can tell, the change needs to come first. WP:TITLECHANGES says an article's name in "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." The underlining is mine. And WP:LISTNAME says "common practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___". The current name conforms to common practice and describes current usage. So unless there is a significant rewrite or another article to merge with, there really are no guidelines or policies that I find to support a name change at this time. Again, no issues with improving the content; sorry if I have not been clear with that. Rublamb (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've just spent some time rereading WP:Article titles, from which you just quoted, as well as WP:Requested moves, WP:Moving a page, and WP:Move review. Nowhere can I find anything that forbids a move between a list article and a regular article. It's entirely within policy and guidelines to propose such a move. And where you quote from the title policy page, the full quote is: "Although titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." When that refers to "describes current usage", it's referring to Usage (language), and saying that we should use language as it is currently practiced, rather than making terms up. It's not about having the title reflect a particular version of a page at a particular point in time, and it's not about forbidding a page move in order to improve page content. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is not forbidden, because consensus is always an option. However, nowhere in WP:MOVE or WP:TITLECHANGES does it suggest changing an article's name in anticipation of future modifications, and the article's title currently conforms to WP:LISTNAME. Even with your planned expansion, the list article format and title still might be the best fit. FL class articles often have extensive introductory sections; this is considered the best practice for FL. However, without the new content to review, it is not possible to say which title will be a better fit. Nothing against you and your vision for this article, but I have seen way too many cases where the result of an AfD is to merge a list article into a "regular" article only to have that list's content deleted later because it is too detailed or too long for the article's text, with editors correctly talking about balance an undue weight. Lists have a lot of haters, especially lists in table format. Rublamb (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  When the argument includes "Lists have lots of haters", there's probably not much I can do to allay anyone's fears. (Likewise for implying that the fact that policies and guidelines don't discuss something means that we discourage the thing that wasn't discussed.) The best way to prevent a list section from being deleted from some future version of the revised page is to continue watchlisting the page, and oppose such an action when and if the time comes. I've already said that such a deletion is not my intention, so I don't see any value in my saying it over and over again. And, given the way this discussion has been going, I have to question why I should go to the considerable effort of writing a draft version when I'm not at all sure that there is consensus for it, and when I have every reason to expect that if I do go to all that effort, some editors will just look for reasons to say that they don't like it. Especially since I've already described what I would see the page as ([5]). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  For Likewise for implying that the fact that policies and guidelines don't discuss something means that we discourage the thing that wasn't discussed., that's a very good description of WP:NOTBURO policy. KoA (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure what this merge would actually involve/look like. I see comments stating the list would be kept, then how would this result in any change at all? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Described here: [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

To add on to Tryptofish's comment, when it comes to change of the content itself, the key thing is that it would allow for focus on narrative expansion. To start though, it really would just be a title change to take care of the notability issues with the current title. That's why it was initially considered relatively uncontroversial and low-effort from a WP:PAG perspective for the underlying problems it would address. KoA (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: A regular page already exists for information about fatal dog attacks, including a section specifically covering the situation in the USA. Given this existing structure, I believe it is unnecessary to make changes. This list is a component of Template:Lists of fatal dog attacks and should remain as such for clarity and ease of access. Wikigrund (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Notability was not established at the AfD with the no consensus close, and hasn't been for years, so we're past the point of arguing keep the page as-is (i.e., a keep decision). What had much less dispute is that the general topic (not the list topic) was notable.

As for Fatal_dog_attacks#United_States_of_America, this would become a standard daughter article of that and is pretty typical when a notable topic exists within a within a larger one like that. If someone really thinks the US topic is not notable (implying the list topic is even less notable), we could always do a merge to the topic you list, but that seems less feasible than the proposed move and even less feasible than leaving the article here as-is. KoA (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@KoA: Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you about the series of no-consensus AfDs. In past AfDs, the challenge was not made based notability of the subject per se, but by saying that the list contains trivial or news-only content. During the most recent AfD, the sources, lack of sources, and bias were also questioned. Most participants in the AfD seemed focused on activism, rather than Wikipedia's guidelines. As a result, there was little response when the reasons given by the nominator were mostly addressed by neutral editors. I don't see how the trivial, news-only, or bias/activism issues go away by changing the article's name. The list and its content still have to be defendable whether it is embedded or in a list article. The major difference between the two is the promotion of attempts to delete an article vs. the much quieter edits to an article. Or am I missing something? Rublamb (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reconciled myself to accepting that my position in this discussion is a lost cause, but I still feel the need to offer what I think you might be missing. The way to make "trivial, news-only, or bias/activism issues go away" is to provide secondary sources and put the focus on those sources. And the way to do that is to present those secondary sources, and describe what they say, in plain text. But, whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm feeling exhausted too and am likely mostly done here, especially after the AfD and the battleground comments that came up in the initial opposes for someone who came in as an outside editor actually working to thread the needle a bit. I'm seeing similar problems here though where legitimate problems are being missed or sidestepped rather than addressed (which this move was meant to very simply address). I feel like I've been repeating myself to Rublamb multiple times now on WP:PAG issues that came up at the AfD.

At the end of the day, it's also up to the closer to actually weigh arguments (just like they did at the AfD), see if a stance is fixing a WP:PAG-focused problem or maintaining it. There should already be a lot of weight against "just keep the title as-is" with the AfD close on its own, but if folks are adamant about keeping it that way, then they shouldn't be surprised or complain when those unaddressed issues keep spurring AfD nominations. I figured most would go with a relative path of least resistance option here instead. KoA (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)