Deletion of People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks

Comment: Merge,''' but very pruned as Elmidae and Ajf773 mention. It is a  list, and I'd also question whether even notable people should be mentioned at the animal attack article where the merge could go. The better place to house such information would be at individual BLPs since notable and killed by an animal is an odd cross sectioning for a list. A category would be better to use in such a case. That said, the merge would at least be an improvement over this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: There are an utterly massive amount of sources covering animal attacks, so the topic will almost certainly meet . Additionally, the list could serve as a useful index, so it also meets . However, the list needs substantial editing: it should be limited to notable people and attacks, have sub-sections covering a greater amount of time than a single year, and have a lede that adequately contextualizes the article and explains what is included. The list needs a lot of work, so I think making it a draft and allowing the creator and interested editors to improve it would be the best outcome
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:LISTPURP)

Comment: into animal attack which is much the same topic.  See  and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: as an  collection of information.  There's no way the list can ever be complete, which is normally a requirement for lists containing non-notable people, per .  It's just a sampler providing an arbitrary sampling of less than 1% people who qualify to be on the list.   (Too bad, someone obviously put a lot of work and love into the page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:LISTPEOPLE)

Comment: as above, after removing incidents that aren't . Some of the language in the article seems sensational, such as People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks#2018|"Swallowed Whole By 23-Foot Python". double
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: a useful list with proper  meets . Regarding the nominator's statement {{tq|It is impossible to include all deaths in WIkipedia}}. It is possible ...however this list only covers People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks and so it is focussed and finite and relevant
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: do we delete unusual but not notable  events, or combine them into lists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Listing all verifiable animal fatalities is a doomed premise, per : {{tq|lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group... should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)}}. This article is at 57 kilobytes and not close to complete. There are two possible directions you could go to create a similar article that does fall in line with policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:CSC)

Comment: as first choice. The list is ''does not meet GNG''. The fact that "animal attacks", as a topic, meets GNG, ''or'' that ''a specific animal attack'' meets GNG, does ''not'' mean that "list of people killed in animal attacks" meets GNG. In order for ''that topic'' ("List of people killed in animal attacks") to be notable, we'd have to have secondary sources that don't (a) talk about animal attacks in general, nor (b) talk about a specific attack, but rather (c) publish a list of people killed in animal attacks. AFAICT, none of the sources in the article are such a list, and no such list exists published be RSes. For us to take a bunch of individual animal attacks and make a list out of it is the very definition of . It violates our  policy. This is exactly what the guideline  and the essay  talk about. With respect, !votes that assert that the list meets GNG should be totally discounted by the closer, absent any evidence of a source that publishes such a list. (I would change by !vote to keep if there were  examples of , not about animal attacks in general or a specific animal attack, but listing people who died in animal attacks.) '''Merge with or without redirect as second choice''' – I'm not even sure that a list of notable animal attacks is a good addition to the article Animal attack, but I suppose that's a discussion to be had on that article's talk page. There is probably little harm in turning the article into a redirect to Animal attacks, and then any notable entries can be merged from the history if there's consensus to do so
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NOR||WP:LISTN||WP:LISTCRUFT||WP:THREE||WP:SIGCOV)