Deletion of Fatal dog attacks in the United States

Comment: per 
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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTIINFO||WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This seems to be an attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, there are issues at times and occasional inaccuracies, but by and large this is a valuable resource. The solution is to follow  and improve, not delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: as per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: per  - a quick search for news sources shows several hits that talk about the topic of US dog attacks as a whole, as opposed to individual incidents
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: I see |lots of in-depth as well as fleeting coverage of the topic in |reliable sources. The nomination and discussion thus far is shallow
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS)

Comment: The encyclopedia benefits from having informative articles like this.  All entries are referenced.  Whenever a dog kills someone, it makes the news somewhere.  One of the founding policies of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules ''If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.''  Also 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY)

Comment: Passes  – see ''https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8657532 Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994'' or ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SOUMAAAACAAJ Fatal Dog Attacks'', for example
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: agree with the reasons above, and will further add that if we summarized the numbers as a statistic for inclusion in a medical article about leading causes of death where  is the prevailing guideline for citing sources, it would fail inclusion.  Another issue I've run across is  with regards to corroborating the accuracy of events in some of the cited sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS||WP:V)

Comment: Per , a list meets notability requirements when the list topic has substantial received coverage by reliable sources. Fatal dog attack in the United States is a subject that has received a lot of coverage and analysis; here are some secondary sources I found after only a rudimentary search: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/09/13/americas-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-infographic/#6b9bdaaa62f8https://www.avma.org/News/Journals/Collections/Documents/javma_217_6_836.pdfhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4595761?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=fatal&searchText=dog&searchText=attacks&searchText=united&searchText=states&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dfatal%2Bdog%2Battacks%2Bunited%2Bstates%26amp%3Bacc%3Doff%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_expensive%2Fcontrol&refreqid=search%3A01c0915309f8d0124a99c59fdac096fa&seq=1https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Lawyer_s_Guide_to_Dangerous_Dog_Issues/hbEVF7RrUiIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=fatal+dog+attacks+in+the+united+states&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover. I believe that  may be a bigger problem: the list size is massive, and I expect that a reasonably complete list would have several thousand listings. However, I think the article does a good job contextualizing the information, and the list is broken up into three sub-articles. Given the extensive academic interest (largely medical and legal) in American dog attacks and the fact that every listing has received coverage in reliable sources, I do not believe indiscriminate is a good reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)