Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal snake bites in Australia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal snake bites in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial to all people who died a particular death, especially to people who individually don't meet the notability requirement, and a lot of unnamed people. Also WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomcollett, Nat965, Ccccchaton000, DPdH, Weedwhacker128, and Dianeatribe: Pinging other editors that have edited the content of this list article in 2019, or who have edited this article in the past and are still active editors in Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/partial merge per nom. Snakes of Australia or Epidemiology_of_snakebites#Australasia would be a great place to provide statistics about snakebites, but I don't think such specific details of people's names in the news is appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 01:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It list how often people in that nation have died from snake bites and list the date and other information. The information wouldn't all fit anywhere else. Listing how they got bit is something of value to learn from. Dream Focus 01:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that would be a WP:SYNTH issue. Surely there are better sources to provide encyclopedic content relating to snakebite deaths rather than a list of people with accompanying news reports. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ajf773, incorrect. If a reader draws a conclusion from the information in an article or list, then that is their own conclusion. Only if the wiki editor writes a conclusion would that be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Normal Op (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unremarkable, not noteworthy, Wikipedia:Listcruft. WWGB (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NLIST. WP:PRESERVE WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So, explain how this passes WP:NLIST please. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant WP:LISTNLists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: informative information.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:INTERESTING. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Lightburst (with correction to LISTN). Article is sourced and meets GNG. Bookscale (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will add to the comments for my !vote that Normal Op has substantially improved the article. Bookscale (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bookscale, thanks for noticing. :) Normal Op (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Collecting a bunch of unnotable people without articles (plus Kevin Budden, whom I am going to nominate for deletion) serves no useful purpose. Breaking it down by species of snake might be worthwhile, but that would be WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - except it's not a list of people, it's a list of events when people were bitten by snakes. The notability derives from the unusual events, not the people themselves. Bookscale (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The events themselves are just as non-notable as the victims. For more clarity see WP:NEVENT. Ajf773 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • But they are notable together as a list of unusual events, that have more than routine coverage collectively, and are sourced. Bookscale (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Clarityfiend, re: "Breaking it down by species of snake might be worthwhile"... Put all the entries in one long table, standardise how the snake names are listed (which I started doing), make the table "wikitable sortable" and the reader will be able to click on the snake column and see the entire list sorted by snake. Problem solved. Normal Op (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: This list article is well-sourced, meets WP:GNG, is informative, has good criteria where the list entries are associated and the list is neither too long nor too short, and it relates well to other wiki articles without being a content fork nor duplicated content. This list (as are many lists similar to it) is not intended as a memorial to people, but as a document showing the history of snake bite deaths over time, to show which snakes have had deadly contact with humans, which areas have been most affected, and give a brief introduction on how people are bitten and how deadly these snakes are -- showing that many did not even perform first aid, though some still died after seeking immediate treatment. Anyone thinking such a list as this is a memorial should clear up their misunderstanding of the word "memorial". Memorials would be focused on either one person, or a group of people dying in the same event. Chronological lists or collections of deaths by similar manner are NOT memorials to the various and unconnected people who died that way, but are bodies of information of interest to those researching a topic by manner of death. The people's names are only of interest to search for further information or citations for a particular death. The oft-cited policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements," where "such requirements" refers to the notability of the article, not the individual elements of its content. Nom's original statement is additionally confusing when he/she claims that the list is a memorial but then complains that some of the entries have no names; that is an illogical argument. Normal Op (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing is a single news report (in some cases more than one) which only covers the actual event, as I mentioned earlier probably would not pass WP:NEVENT and the victims themselves would not pass WP:GNG. The purpose of the list does not offer any encyclopedic depth of snakebite deaths. It is really just a collection of deceased people and accompanying news reports. The only piece of content worth retaining is the foreword, which actually contains some well sourced content and this could be merged to another article or recreated elsewhere without the full victim list. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The controlling notability policy here is WP:LISTN, not WP:NEVENT. From LISTN I quote:"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." What I have discovered, and apparently some have yet to seek out and discover for themselves, is that snakebites have been a regularly, repeated and well-covered subject in Australian news over a significant period of time — oh, like 150 years! I have seen and read numerous articles across multiple decades on the frequency of snakebites in Australia, the frequency of snakebites in particular areas, lists of fatality victims, lists of snakebite victims that did not die, the fear of snakebite incidents, first aid treatment of snakebites, their clinical treatment, which methods worked, the snake collection efforts for venom research, venom collection methods, the advances of antivenom and treatments, etc. Apparently, snakebites are on the minds of Australians, and have been for over a century! According to several reliable sources I read, Australia is considered the leading expert on the subject of venomous snakes and the treatment of their bites. Perhaps that is because of the emphasis and coverage in news media during the last century, and efforts of Australian snakemen, herpetologists and medical researchers. Normal Op (talk)
• Keep I think with a bit more work, it could become rather nice. It is definitely a mess right now, but has reason to stay considering the other articles similar to it have been here for years/it is well sourced and a useful topic. It has potential. Ccccchaton000 (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly a strong argument for retention. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ccccchaton000, I did a significant amount of work on the article in the last few days. Take a look at it now. Normal Op (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Addressing each of the other policies Nom mentioned (that I had not earlier addressed):
  • WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, I quote:To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. That is done through the lede paragraph and the comments section on each list entry.
  • WP:NOR, I quote:Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. No such conclusions are evident in the article. I find no OR, nor has Nom pointed out any specific instances of it. And had he/she found any, it would be more appropriate to tag or edit/correct or remove such content. If such violated content exists or existed, it is not a reason for deletion of an article. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
  • WP:GNG General notability guideline includes 5 subcategories (Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject, Presumed), all 5 of which are in compliance with this list-article.
  • WP:SYNTH was already addressed above.

— Normal Op (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is List of fatal cougar attacks in North America, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of people who died in traffic collisions (surely this one is just way and way beyond it?), Crocodile attack, and I have not looked further. As the current AfD stands is looks like LISTCRUFT, but it is is well referenced. I would suggest the encycolpedic value for this article is not about the people (sorry) but rather the Epidemiology as per, for example, Lightning injury. I would support a keep if the incidents could be sorted by age, gender, snake species, activity type, etc. Aoziwe (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The traffic collisions article is clearly defined to those who meet the notability requirements. I would expect the same for any list of deaths by cause, regardless of the size of the list. Ajf773 (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aoziwe, I agree that the list would be more helpful if it were sortable by snake species; the other criteria are probably not of interest. I can certainly do that, but I will enquire on the article's Talk page before making that drastic a change because it would require removing the "decade" sections and slapping them all together in one big table. Normal Op (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Op You could experiment along the lines of User:Aoziwe/sandbox/sorting? Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well referenced article, notable topic. Samboy (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well sourced and encyclopedic. The allegations that the article constitutes WP:SYNTH may have been accurate as of the nomination timeframe (back in December 5, 2019) but it is far from true today. The article deserves to be kept because it falls squarely within Wikipedia policies. (Also, a hearty trouting to the person who tried to get rid of related articles in order to strengthen the deletionist case. That's dirty pool.) Michepman (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Article has enough signs of notability and is well sourced. Alex-h (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well sourced and enyclopedic. Snake bites are important in Australia. gidonb (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just looking at the victims for individual notability 1867 Drummond Police Magistrate has potential https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=drummond+rutherglen+&l-state=Victoria&l-decade=186 , theres two people who died because of Rocky Vane Snake show, individuals might not be but the show will be. 1920's & 1930's I count 8 out the 20 related to snake handlers and shows including one show at the Adelaide Zoo, all potentially notable incidents. That would make at least 10 people or events in the list notable in their own right. Gnangarra 07:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-encyclopedic content. The assertion that this shows general trends has no actual basis--there is much more likely to be selective reporting. There may be a frew individual incidents that are notable , but that does not justify the lsit. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it sounds like you haven't even read the article. The article has been substantially improved since the start of this AfD and your comments make no sense - I refer you to WP:LISTN that "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Bookscale (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.