Deletion of List of fatal dog attacks in the United States

Comment: per the nom. Fails , ,  and has serious  issues. A set of incomplete lists from local sources of random people killed by dogs in one country is hardly the purpose of Wikipedia, and as the nom hinted at, where does this end? If truly a notable collection of data, why not a list of fatal dog attacks in the first century of the Roman Empire? Or in 1950's Thailand? Wikipedia should not be listing the names and personal details of random people who were victims of  tragedies so people can gawk at these blood soaked local events, which is the only reason for this article that I can tell. Aside from gawking, what is the lasting notability reason for having an article dedicated to including as many entries such as this real one: "Demi Witherspoon; 2 years; pit bull; The family dog bit the child's face completely off." The article Fatal dog attacks is enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:BLP||WP:RUNOFTHEMILL)

Comment: Well sourced and informative article. Meets  and in my view is suitable under . &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:LISTN)

Comment: per nom.  Fatal dog attacks is a notable topic, but there's not the sort of coverage to work .  And {{u|Dream Focus}} - It looks like some of your examples above should probably go, too.  Sometimes |other stuff that does exist shouldn't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: fails , , , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS||WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:NOTADVOCACY||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Per nom. An attempt to get round  by sticking a load of news stories into a list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: the lists meet our criteria  the lists are informational. I have much respect for Eddie891, but I have even more respect for the project and for the reader's desire to find this information. The https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States pageviews show that our readers are using this information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: per   and . Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate memorial for victims of a specific death, especially as almost every victim is non notable, including infant children (some not even named), and referenced by a single news report. Delete reasons remain the same for the last nomination
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTIINFO||WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: These are far too frequent and numerous to warrant a list.   and  are king here.  An overall compilation of statistics would be fine, such as deaths per year, per breed, per country, etc. (doing like this wouldn't even require the attacks to be fatal).  Whether that can be done in a main article or warrants a separate article just for the stats, I'll remain agnostic about for now.  The individual details surrounding specific attacks are |run-of-the-mill news items and don't warrant mention.  We also don't (nor should we) compile lists of every person killed by lightning strike, by shark attack, in plane crashes, etc.  &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:MILL)

Comment: This list article is well-sourced, meets , is informative, has good criteria for inclusion. These list-articles are part of a set and are neither a content fork nor duplicated content. Originally the list was part of the fatal dog attack article until it became big enough to require it to |split. The list entries are well cited and there has been very little problem with bias or edit wars. This list (and there are many lists similar to it) is not intended as a memorial to people, but as a document showing the history of fatal dog attacks over time, and give a brief summary on how the event happened, and sometimes includes what happened because of a particular attack (legislation, or a conviction, etc.). 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, which is one function of an encyclopedia. The people's names are only of interest to search for further information or citations for a particular death. The oft-cited policy  says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize '''deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances'''.  LISTN isn't an issue because the subject "fatal dog attacks" ''and'' "fatal dogs attacks in the US" have been well covered in media, studies and books. These lists are not memorials, they are events. RECENTISM is so far from an issue that I can't even believe it was brought up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIZESPLIT||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: a few thoughts.  First, how is this different from List of hazing deaths in the United States or List of deaths on eight-thousanders?  There is a volume difference, we have about 40 deaths by dog attack in the US per year.  At some point, the volume is too much.  A List of Maltese people that contained all 500000 Maltese residents would be ridiculous, even though the topic of Maltese people is clearly notable.  List of Maltese people correctly contains only blue-linked articles -- most of the entries here would have no possibility of being stand-alone articles.  The guidance at  says that {{tq|if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list}}.  At 40 entries per year for one country, this is just too much detail.  That said, I don't feel that NOTNEWS or IINFO applies here; perhaps an RFC to add a criteria to  would be informative
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:CSC||WP:NOT)

Comment: some things I think it's worth clarifying. 1) Yes it is a violation of . Several keep !voters have harped on the fact that it isn't in-discriminant because has clear inclusion standards. That's wrong. {{tq|reported by the news media, published in scholarly papers, or mentioned through other sources.}} is not a standard of inclusion, it is just a rephrasing of . Of course a fatal dog attack would have to be mentioned in a source to be here. There is no threshold of inclusion other than it being verifiable, which is already our policy (see  as well). Note that indiscriminate says {{tq|merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia}}, which is the case here and brings me to point 2)  absolutely applies to this list. Particularly points 2 and 3, {{Tq|Wikipedia considers the enduring wikipedia:Notability|notability of persons and events. Wikipedia considers the enduring wikipedia:Notability|notability of persons and events.}}. 3) in the same vein,  is not met because nowhere is the actual ''list'' of fatal attacks (chronicling individual events) discussed. These three points are at the heart of why this list should be deleted. Nobody is saying that "fatal dog attacks" or even "fatal dog attacks in the United States" is a non-notable topic, but that the "list of fatal dog attacks in the United States" should be deleted, something that has not adequately been addressed in keep !votes, imo
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:LISTN)

Comment: per nom. Wikipedia is |not the news. Clearly breaks  and are not individually notable so have no place in an encyclopaeida. — Yours,  User:Berrely |'''''Berrely'''''&nbsp;•&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:IINFO)