The deletionists have won

[Poetlister]

Abbey Road was famous for music recordings long before the Beatles were born and indeed before zebra crossings were invented. I have a photo of Elgar standing in Abbey Road with a teenage Yehudi Menuhin. This was presumably on the day they recorded Elgar's violin concerto. But I was thinking of really important B roads like the B1065, which runs through the town of Glemsford (T-H-L), population 3,382 in 2011 according to the article, linking that town to the B1066 and the A1092. It looks like the road is not even mentioned in the article about Glemsford.

[C&B]

WP:ROADOUTCOMES says

B' roads are usually deleted or merged

.
This is the good, really, as it means the One Like Ritchie333 cannot spam a thousand 500-word articles And Get his pals to pass them as GAs

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Roads (T-H-L)

[lonza leggiera]

…

I have a photo of Elgar standing in Abbey Road with a teenage Yehudi Menuhin.

…

This one?

[Instant Noodle]

User:Bearcat is a strange one. He's one of the leading deletionists on Wikipedia, and generally rude and condescending about it too, yet he also creates lightly sourced articles on his personal obsession - Canadian film. EG Fucking Idiots, for which he has all of two sources and was shown at a minor film festival - and then Happy Place - again only two sources and showing at an even more minor film festival.

[AndyTheGrump]

I'm sure we all have pet subjects we think are interesting, and accordingly think deserve more coverage, either in Wikipedia or somewhere else. The real issue is that the road-freaks, people-who've-not-died-yet obsessives, and fans of obscure superheroes from Japanese animations that even the Japanese don't watch insist on in-depth-coverage of absolutely everything to a level that not-giving-a-fuck is the only rational response of anyone having the misfortune to come across such articles by chance. And when the obsessives get to arguing amongst themselves (which they inevitably do, since they are obsessed), other people have to waste so much time and effort sorting out the mess, to the immense detriment of anyone trying to create something vaguely resembling an encyclopaedia. Something that summarises topics of general interest, rather than regurgitating ever last scrap of opinion-presented-as-fact and pointless 'data' concerning subjects that nobody except the writer cares about in the slightest.

Apparently, in AfD's, "not being encyclopaedic" isn't considered to be a legitimate argument for deletion. Which is truly bizarre, since anywhere else, one would have thought that it was the only appropriate criteria to make such decisions. In Wikipedialand though, the endless policy-mongering and guideline-enforcing has resulted in a situation where you can't actually take into account the supposed purpose of the project when deciding whether something should be included in it.

[Vigilant]

[Poetlister]

…

I have a photo of Elgar standing in Abbey Road with a teenage Yehudi Menuhin.

…

This one?

Elgar Menuhin.jpg

Yes.

[lonza leggiera]

…

I have a photo of Elgar standing in Abbey Road with a teenage Yehudi Menuhin.

…

This one?

Elgar Menuhin.jpg
Yes.

According to the caption labelling the photo on the site where I found it, it was taken after the recording had been finished.

[Poetlister]

According to the caption labelling the photo on the site where I found it, it was taken after the recording had been finished.

That's interesting; thanks. And 50 years later, Menuhin made a second recording of the concerto in the same studio, though of course Elgar was long dead by then. But let's not get too off-topic.

[No Ledge]

I'm sure we all have pet subjects we think are interesting, and accordingly think deserve more coverage, either in Wikipedia or somewhere else. The real issue is that the road-freaks, people-who've-not-died-yet obsessives, and fans of obscure superheroes from Japanese animations that even the Japanese don't watch insist on in-depth-coverage of absolutely everything to a level that not-giving-a-fuck is the only rational response of anyone having the misfortune to come across such articles by chance. And when the obsessives get to arguing amongst themselves (which they inevitably do, since they are obsessed), other people have to waste so much time and effort sorting out the mess, to the immense detriment of anyone trying to create something vaguely resembling an encyclopaedia. Something that summarises topics of general interest, rather than regurgitating ever last scrap of opinion-presented-as-fact and pointless 'data' concerning subjects that nobody except the writer cares about in the slightest.

Apparently, in AfD's, "not being encyclopaedic" isn't considered to be a legitimate argument for deletion. Which is truly bizarre, since anywhere else, one would have thought that it was the only appropriate criteria to make such decisions. In Wikipedialand though, the endless policy-mongering and guideline-enforcing has resulted in a situation where you can't actually take into account the supposed purpose of the project when deciding whether something should be included in it.

Bravo. I have another example where the deletionists have not won. In this case, rather than roads, centenarians or Japanese superheros, the obsessives are maintaining a List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (T-H-L). A recent attempt to delete this list failed to reach a consensus. Someone arguing for keeping this list claimed that it "isn't hurting anyone by keeping it up". I beg to differ. Many of the victims listed by name are children, and while they're dead, many of their parents and siblings are still living. What is likely the most traumatic event of their lives is posted in perpetuity, a badge of family shame.

I searched Wikipediocracy for prior discussions about this list, and just found it discussed here, as a sidebar discussion in another thread. That linked to a 2012 Daily News article "Dog killed 2-month-old baby, ripped child’s legs off while father slept in other room: police". Yes, Wikipedia includes this incident in their list. There are two citations to the local Charleston, South Carolina newspaper, and the difference between the two papers' reports illustrates the potential unreliability of news reports. The first report says the baby's legs (plural) were torn off. The later report just says "dismembered his leg" (singular).

Wikipedia's entry says:

Killed by the family's dog. The death was ruled a homicide and the child's father was charged with illegal neglect of a child.

The cited source doesn't mention the term "Homicide". Is there actually a legal thing called "canine homicide"? This blurb seems to almost imply "negligent homicide" which is more serious than what the news report indicated.

What is the encyclopedic value of such a list. Most of the individual entries aren't notable by themselves; the "article" is just mostly a data set. It only becomes useful as knowledge if some analysis of the data is done from which conclusions are drawn. But per Wikipedia:Synthesis (T-H-L) says that editors cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

This seems to be exactly what this list does. The lead section does draw conclusions but it is not a summary of the list article itself. And it's dated. The lead says "the number of deaths from dog attacks appear to be increasing" but this conclusion is drawn from a 15-year old study that ended in 2005.

Wikipedia does have an encyclopedic entry Fatal dog attacks (T-H-L) but page views of that are dwarfed by views of this list of attacks. link

[C&B]

Yet an autre Cowboy Close from Ritchie333 there (diff), quickly reverted (diff) after Big Ball Bashing: I think the Arbcom should Remind Him the meaning of Involved...

Updated @16:58 per request: Serious Accusations Do Need Serious Diffs, of course

[Beeblebrox]

And let's not forget the many, many lists of airline destinations. These are basically free ads for every airline you can imagine, listing every place they fly to.

I suggested we shouldn't be doing that, got a consensus that this was the case, and then everyone was simply aghast when I actually tried to enact that consensus and start deleting them. I believe I was threatened with a block in there somewhere.

[DoctorHver]

I personally think that Inclusionist vs deletionist's debate boils down to one thing. What is notable to whom?

So
person A migh value topic x as notable
person B might value topic y as notable
A thinks topic x has no notability so A might be happy to delete topic y
B thinks topix y has no notablility so B might be happy to delete topic x

or
B thinks noting of topic x because its no notable to them or meaningful its outside of their scope of intrest. But they don't see reason to delete it as its human knowledge.
A thinks noting of topic y because its no notable to them or meaningful its outside of their scope of intrest. But they don't see reason to delete it as its human knowledge.

SO I think lots of material is probably getting deleted becasue it was outside someone is scope of intrest, although some articles probably get deleted since there are pure nonsense. Although I don't have clear example of this for time being.

sometimes the problem is that many editors are poor at googling and basic researching so if google don't turn up with source within 5 minutes of google they are quick to nominate the whole article for deletion. If it doesn't have any previous sources.

[Ming]

No, it's not that. It more like this (and you can guess which side Ming is on): inclusionists are on the side of indiscriminate addition of material, and deletionists have standards.

[Ryuichi]

I personally think that Inclusionist vs deletionist's debate boils down to one thing. What is notable to whom?
...
SO I think lots of material is probably getting deleted becasue it was outside someone is scope of intrest, although some articles probably get deleted since there are pure nonsense. Although I don't have clear example of this for time being.

I've never !voted to delete something simply because it was outside my scope of interest; and, without evidence, I don't believe that it's common that editors do vote delete for that reason.

I have !voted delete because there were insufficient sources which provide significant, independent, reliable coverage of the article subject, and/or because the article subject was WP:NOT something that should be included in an encyclopedia.

"What is notable to whom?" is a classic misunderstanding of "notability" as being congruent to "importance".

sometimes the problem is that many editors are poor at googling and basic researching so if google don't turn up with source within 5 minutes of google they are quick to nominate the whole article for deletion. If it doesn't have any previous sources.

Feature, not bug.

[C&B]

No, it's not that. It more like this (and you can guess which side Ming is on): inclusionists are on the side of indiscriminate addition of material, and deletionists have standards.

The Good Doctor is perhaps A Little Sensitive about deletions... Not Least, on account of nearly half his articles being deleted already

[Poetlister]

It is beyond doubt that many people who !vote in AfDs vote keep because ILIKEIT. Conversely, it is hard to believe that everyone who votes delete has really made a considered decision based on an objective assessment. There must be IDON'TLIKEIT and people who don't know enough to assess the importance of a topic or the reliability of the sources.

[Ryuichi]

There must be IDON'TLIKEIT and people who don't know enough to assess the importance of a topic or the reliability of the sources.

There are absolutely people voting delete because IDONTLIKEIT, and absolutely people not competent at assessing reliability of sources (though I'd say they're more likely to vote keep). But both of those are very different from people voting delete for articles because they are uninterested or disinterested in the subject. I'd say the IDONTLIKEITs are very interested indeed.

[WanderingGuest]

There's a RIGHTGREATWRONG element to at least a few keep votes on fatal dog attacks list. There's a conspiracy theory that the Big Bulldog Lobby is trying to suppress information about fatalities caused by the violent nature of bulldogs. Of course, a few brave vigilantes are still heroically preserving The Truth on personal blogs and Wikipedia lists.

[C&B]

Also, it Is that DoctorHver (T-C-L) is getting his Stones Paddled at ANI right now

[Giraffe Stapler]

The Good Doctor is perhaps A Little Sensitive about deletions... Not Least, on account of nearly half his articles being deleted already

Thankfully, Questions!/Answers? (T-H-L) is still there (although I'm not entirely sure what it is about)....

[C&B]

The Good Doctor is perhaps A Little Sensitive about deletions... Not Least, on account of nearly half his articles being deleted already

Thankfully, Questions!/Answers? (T-H-L) is still there (although I'm not entirely sure what it is about)....

What The Actual-is That?! The sole prose Is "What is the importance of history in designers and architects life?"

[No Ledge]

Software seems to eat the question mark. Here's a link that works.

Questions%21%2FAnswers%3F (T-H-L)

Someone vandalized the lead on 9 September 2019. I just reverted.

Systems for prompt detection and reversion are still lacking. We need better artificial intelligence / machine learning. Cluebot is relatively primitive.

[C&B]

Thanks, at least that makes a Modicum of sense now

[Atsme]

There's a RIGHTGREATWRONG element to at least a few keep votes on fatal dog attacks list. There's a conspiracy theory that the Big Bulldog Lobby is trying to suppress information about fatalities caused by the violent nature of bulldogs. Of course, a few brave vigilantes are still heroically preserving The Truth on personal blogs and Wikipedia lists.

You've got it wrong. The RGW element belongs entirely to the bulldog haters, not those who are informed and understand how a century of responsible breeding has bred-out the traits (evolution) that were bred-in back in the 18th & 19th century. Example: humans no longer live in caves, carry clubs, and beat their women into submission (well, at least in most cultures they don't). Yes, there are some who still do, but we don't round up all the males of the human species for extirpation because of the few who either haven't evolved or who still possess those genetics. There are too many variables to call it RGW because the only wrong is killing innocent dogs in a wide-spread unintelligent sweep based on anecdotal info, and visual IDs (a process that was proven unreliable by science). Funny how some people promote science in one breath and discredit it in another.

[Poetlister]

There must be IDON'TLIKEIT and people who don't know enough to assess the importance of a topic or the reliability of the sources.

There are absolutely people voting delete because IDONTLIKEIT, and absolutely people not competent at assessing reliability of sources (though I'd say they're more likely to vote keep). But both of those are very different from people voting delete for articles because they are uninterested or disinterested in the subject. I'd say the IDONTLIKEITs are very interested indeed.

If they are uninterested or disinterested in the subject, they won't realise how important the topic is to people who are interested, or how highly regarded some sources are by people who understand the subject.

[Poetlister]

Someone vandalized the lead on 9 September 2019. I just reverted.

Another triumph for rapid fixing of obvious vandalism? It's not just cluebot; there are allegedly umpteen people monitoring recent revisions and none of them spotted it.

[No Ledge]

Someone vandalized the lead on 9 September 2019. I just reverted.

Another triumph for rapid fixing of obvious vandalism? It's not just cluebot; there are allegedly umpteen people monitoring recent revisions and none of them spotted it.

Obviously "umpteen" is not enough. To get more people watching recent changes, they'll have to start filling coffee cups.

Since there is an aversion to doing that, it seems that improving software is the only option.

Personally I don't bother much with recent changes or my watchlist. I have much more efficient ways to find problems needing fixed, and have backlogs that will keep me busy for some time to come. I only revert vandalism of that sort when I run into it while checking my other work queues.

Back to the topic of this thread...

[Giraffe Stapler]

Personally I don't bother much with recent changes or my watchlist. I have much more efficient ways to find problems needing fixed, and have backlogs that will keep me busy for some time to come. I only revert vandalism of that sort when I run into it while checking my other work queues.

You obviously didn't read the rules which come with the Wikipedia game board. Extra points are awarded for quickly reverting changes you don't like. You need to monitor your watchlist like a hawk if you want to rack up points. Sure, you can become a "new changes patroller" but that's basically just mining gold. The real points come from owning articles.

[ArmasRebane]

Concert tour articles are some of the biggest piles of shit in the encyclopedia.

"X's Y tour was a tour in support of album Y by the artist X. Here's what X played on the tour. Here's a list of the cities they visited. What a great article I've just written".

I gave up sending them to AfD years ago because basically no-one cared apart from the people who liked that particular artists and so they all ended up being no consensus.

Obviously there are notable tours. They are very few and far between.

In general, I think band articles tend to be some of the worst-written on Wikipedia, especially if they're a current band.

They just become fossil record-style layer cakes with "On X date, Y played at Z" sentences strung together. The touring stuff is generally even worse.

Anyhow, I think a lot of the vitriol around AfDs comes down to the fact that it's a thankless task to do the work to demonstrate notability on fringe* topics and demonstrate that on AfD, and an equally thankless task to actually improve the article the people who show up think is notable but can't be arsed to actually put in the work to demonstrate it.

It's kind of sadly funny how many piss-poor articles I stumble across that I find had an AfD where sources were provided, yet no one actually bothered to integrate them into the article.

*Anything that can't readily demonstrate passing the GNG with a cursory search of Google or an Academic database.

[AngelOne]

You've got it wrong. The RGW element belongs entirely to the bulldog haters, not those who are informed and understand how a century of responsible breeding has bred-out the traits (evolution) that were bred-in back in the 18th & 19th century. Example: humans no longer live in caves, carry clubs, and beat their women into submission (well, at least in most cultures they don't). Yes, there are some who still do, but we don't round up all the males of the human species for extirpation because of the few who either haven't evolved or who still possess those genetics. There are too many variables to call it RGW because the only wrong is killing innocent dogs in a wide-spread unintelligent sweep based on anecdotal info, and visual IDs (a process that was proven unreliable by science). Funny how some people promote science in one breath and discredit it in another.

Let me see... you're not trying to right a great wrong like those other people, you're identifying a great wrong and you just want to make the article right. Tooooootally different.

[Poetlister]

Let me see... you're not trying to right a great wrong like those other people, you're identifying a great wrong and you just want to make the article right. Tooooootally different.

There could be a difference. He's not assuming that "correcting" the article will do much to right the wrong.

[Atsme]

You've got it wrong. The RGW element belongs entirely to the bulldog haters, not those who are informed and understand how a century of responsible breeding has bred-out the traits (evolution) that were bred-in back in the 18th & 19th century. Example: humans no longer live in caves, carry clubs, and beat their women into submission (well, at least in most cultures they don't). Yes, there are some who still do, but we don't round up all the males of the human species for extirpation because of the few who either haven't evolved or who still possess those genetics. There are too many variables to call it RGW because the only wrong is killing innocent dogs in a wide-spread unintelligent sweep based on anecdotal info, and visual IDs (a process that was proven unreliable by science). Funny how some people promote science in one breath and discredit it in another.

Let me see... you're not trying to right a great wrong like those other people, you're identifying a great wrong and you just want to make the article right. Tooooootally different.

Good to know you can see the difference , now how about adding some real substance to the discussion?

[AngelOne]

Let me see... you're not trying to right a great wrong like those other people, you're identifying a great wrong and you just want to make the article right. Tooooootally different.

Good to know you can see the difference , now how about adding some real substance to the discussion?

Pointing out the hypocrisy in your post isn't adding real substance to the discussion?

[Atsme]

I get it now. You're a troll hiding behind your anonymity. I won't waste my valuable time responding to you anymore. Good job - you win.

[Vigilant]

I get it now. You're a troll hiding behind your anonymity. I won't waste my valuable time responding to you anymore. Good job - you win.

Five posts in an you're already making friends here.

[Poetlister]

Pointing out the hypocrisy in your post isn't adding real substance to the discussion?

It just causes ill feeling, really. If for the sake of argument there is blatant hypocrisy, everyone can see for themselves. If there isn't, pointing out non-existent hypocrisy would be wrong. It's lose-lose.

[DoctorHver]

Also, it Is that DoctorHver (T-C-L) is getting his Stones Paddled at ANI right now

Manly by the person that reported me the two other editors that weighted in didn't seems to think that it was worthy case of reporting. I would expect this to close with no futher action at some point but knowing wiki admins who knows.

[DoctorHver]

The Good Doctor is perhaps A Little Sensitive about deletions... Not Least, on account of nearly half his articles being deleted already

nah, I don't care much about those articles that have been deleted as some of them were created originally as redirects so if they don't want those redirects too bad.

[AngelOne]

Pointing out the hypocrisy in your post isn't adding real substance to the discussion?

It just causes ill feeling, really. If for the sake of argument there is blatant hypocrisy, everyone can see for themselves. If there isn't, pointing out non-existent hypocrisy would be wrong. It's lose-lose.

I look like a Trolly McTrollface if I point out hypocrisy, is that what you're saying?

That could be solved, in part, with a "rolling eyes" emoji. Then I could just reply with that and let you all guess what I'm rolling my eyes about. I could be an inscrutable Trolly McTrollface.

I could also throw in more fucks so that people will focus on my language instead of my point, making me an obfuscated Trolly McTrollface.

I see value in pointing out hypocrisy instead of assuming everyone will see it, especially if the hypocrite has been spreading the hypocrisy in multiple places (a look at the discussions around this list of dog attacks in the US showed this to be true). Mostly because that self-righteous shit annoys the fuck out of me. Partly because I think people do benefit from being told that their reasoning is shit flawed. Naive, I know.

[DoctorHver]

Software seems to eat the question mark. Here's a link that works.

Questions%21%2FAnswers%3F (T-H-L)

Someone vandalized the lead on 9 September 2019. I just reverted.

Systems for prompt detection and reversion are still lacking. We need better artificial intelligence / machine learning. Cluebot is relatively primitive.

Yes, Walt Disney's educational films the most obscure things to ever come out of the Mouse House, I don't have the exact number produced but I would guess they created maybe 150-300 such shorts ,and for the majority of them between 1940s to 1990s. Maybe longer, The funny thing is the company cannot give stright answer what these films were about. the Book Disney A to Z which is studios offical Encyclopedia cannot tell you much about these and nether can the website d23.com as many things there are just repeats from the book. So you cannot get much meaningful info about these films such as were these animated? or are they live-action? or combined? Were characters such as Donald, Goofy, Mickey Used in those? So to anwer these questions it would be logical to turn to youtube or to ebay but the funnything is you might only find be able about 5-10% of these films as they are that obsucre. maybe one and one might pop up at ebay or be uploaded to youtube over time but I wouldn't hold my breth.

What about invidual articles about educational series such as Questions/Answers? let me start by saying its hillarious that these invidual articles have surived on Wikipedia for 10 years, they were manly created as test to see if wikiepedia would reconize notablity with these films since they all came out of Mouse House, no matter how obsure they actually are individually. I'm sure if I had left out all connection to Disney in the orignal creations of the articles, i'm sure speedy delete would have happened to all of them. All of these will stay as stubs forever unless some independent Disney historian decides to sit down do tone of research and write a lengthy book about so wikipedia can qoute that book as rellable source but spoiler alert that will never happen. so ether way I couldn't cereless what happens to these articles whether they stay or go, after all I haven't made single edit to any of them ever since I created these articles 10 years ago. but maybe these articles have stayed on wikipedia because maybe Jimbo likes articles about obsecure Disney educationals film series.

[Midsize Jake]

I see value in pointing out hypocrisy instead of assuming everyone will see it, especially if the hypocrite has been spreading the hypocrisy in multiple places (a look at the discussions around this list of dog attacks in the US showed this to be true). Mostly because that self-righteous shit annoys the fuck out of me. Partly because I think people do benefit from being told that their reasoning is shit flawed. Naive, I know.

We should all be able to point out hypocrisy if we feel it's important to do so, preferably within the proper context of course. (And do try not to get all super-personal about it, if at all possible.)

Still, it seems perfectly fair to suggest that WP's List of Dog Attacks, especially given its sheer size and level of detail, indicates an anti-big-dog agenda among the people who keep adding to it — one that goes beyond mere cataloguing. And maybe it's worth mentioning that by comparison, there are no corresponding "List of fatal cat attacks" or "List of fatal cat attacks in America" articles on WP at all (though there's a List of fatal cougar attacks in North America (T-H-L) at least). Housecat-related fatalities do happen, but mostly they're accidental, not intentional on the part of the cat.

Or are they?

Anyway, the only point I would add here is that pretty much all dog (not to mention cat) breeds have their own articles, along with dozens of other dog-related subjects. I would guess that from an outsider's perspective, the "fatal attacks" list is like a small island of negativity in a vast sea of (mostly) pro-dog material. Pro-dog people probably shouldn't get too upset over its existence, lest their enemies respond with something even more clever and detrimental. That's pretty much how things work over there, after all.

[Vigilant]

Pointing out the hypocrisy in your post isn't adding real substance to the discussion?

It just causes ill feeling, really. If for the sake of argument there is blatant hypocrisy, everyone can see for themselves. If there isn't, pointing out non-existent hypocrisy would be wrong. It's lose-lose.

I look like a Trolly McTrollface if I point out hypocrisy, is that what you're saying?

That could be solved, in part, with a "rolling eyes" emoji. Then I could just reply with that and let you all guess what I'm rolling my eyes about. I could be an inscrutable Trolly McTrollface.

I could also throw in more fucks so that people will focus on my language instead of my point, making me an obfuscated Trolly McTrollface.

I see value in pointing out hypocrisy instead of assuming everyone will see it, especially if the hypocrite has been spreading the hypocrisy in multiple places (a look at the discussions around this list of dog attacks in the US showed this to be true). Mostly because that self-righteous shit annoys the fuck out of me. Partly because I think people do benefit from being told that their reasoning is shit flawed. Naive, I know.

Please just ignore PoetLister aka the most notorious troll and female impersonator in wikipedia history.

He's a suppurating hemorrhoid I haven't quite managed to lance just yet.

[tarantino]

Housecat-related fatalities do happen, but mostly they're accidental, not intentional on the part of the cat.

Or are they?

From the Washington Post: Compelling new evidence that your cat might eat your corpse

[AngelOne]

I see value in pointing out hypocrisy instead of assuming everyone will see it, especially if the hypocrite has been spreading the hypocrisy in multiple places (a look at the discussions around this list of dog attacks in the US showed this to be true). Mostly because that self-righteous shit annoys the fuck out of me. Partly because I think people do benefit from being told that their reasoning is shit flawed. Naive, I know.

We should all be able to point out hypocrisy if we feel it's important to do so, preferably within the proper context of course. (And do try not to get all super-personal about it, if at all possible.)

Still, it seems perfectly fair to suggest that WP's List of Dog Attacks, especially given its sheer size and level of detail, indicates an anti-big-dog agenda among the people who keep adding to it — one that goes beyond mere cataloguing. And maybe it's worth mentioning that by comparison, there are no corresponding "List of fatal cat attacks" or "List of fatal cat attacks in America" articles on WP at all (though there's a List of fatal cougar attacks in North America (T-H-L) at least). Housecat-related fatalities do happen, but mostly they're accidental, not intentional on the part of the cat.

Or are they?

Anyway, the only point I would add here is that pretty much all dog (not to mention cat) breeds have their own articles, along with dozens of other dog-related subjects. I would guess that from an outsider's perspective, the "fatal attacks" list is like a small island of negativity in a vast sea of (mostly) pro-dog material. Pro-dog people probably shouldn't get too upset over its existence, lest their enemies respond with something even more clever and detrimental. That's pretty much how things work over there, after all.

I think toxoplasmosis (T-H-L) infections have just convinced people that all cats' kills are "accidental".

That dog list article is a mess, and all sides are doing that right great wrongs thing. From the outside it looks like all sides are much more interested in arguing about what they think is right in the world instead of how to make an article that isn't a mind-numbing devolution into irrelevant minutiae.

[Ming]

The other thing (besides the serious recentism) is that the list is obviously contaminated by reporting bias of the "bad breeds" variety. It's made particularly obvious by the number of times the phrase "initially reported as a bit bull" appears in the summary narratives.

[Poetlister]

I look like a Trolly McTrollface if I point out hypocrisy, is that what you're saying?

I'm suggesting that maybe pointing out things that are blindingly obvious is rarely necessary. By all means draw our attention to things that we may not have realised.

[Beeblebrox]

inclusionists are on the side of indiscriminate addition of material, and deletionists aren't a real thing

FTFY

[Poetlister]

"initially reported as a pit bull" appears in the summary narratives.

That makes more sense.

[Blooxo]

It's getting worse, I'm seeing AFDs for the primary protagonists and antagonists being deleted, not just minor characters. Wikipedia's conflict of interest in moving most of its content to the ad-monetized Fandom.com is so infuriating. In a sane world, Fandom would be ad free and part of Wikimedia, as I mentioned in my Wikimedia should acquire Fandom post. Right now, there is no reason to contribute to Wikipedia, is it will just get AFDed or reverted. I've had enough of Wikipedia and will not contribute there again until Jimbo Wales and all his deletionist friends are gone.