Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks
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
— User:Levivich, 16:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SYNTH||WP:NOR||WP:LISTN||WP:LISTCRUFT||WP:THREE||WP:SIGCOV (Wikipedia:No original research)