Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deadliest animals to humans


 * 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 speedy keep. The nomination lacks a valid reason to delete; its point about a single source is now erroneous and there is little support for it. See WP:SK and WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

List of deadliest animals to humans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(Copying my reasoning from Talk:List of deadliest animals to humans) This list is problematic in several ways: Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It is copied from just one source.
 * 2) The source gives no information about how this list was determined, so "due to any type of cause of death" has simply been made up by the person who wrote this article.
 * 3) The source lists a total mish-mash of species, genera and higher-level taxons, for example all snakes are lumped together.
 * 4) According to the source the 24th most deadly animal only killed one person. Of course there are more than 24 types of animal that have killed more than one person: think of all the deadly parasites, to start with. That is obvious nonsense so the source is obviously unreliable.
 * 5) I'm sure there are many other reasons, but I've already listed more than enough to show that this whole article is complete bollocks.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Very easy to find sources. I just referenced some of the list.  A lot of reliable sources mention the most deadly animals towards people, so it passes the general notability guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  19:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  19:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep No pretense of compliance with WP:Before.  Lots of on line sources available, as would be proved if the nominator had bothered to click on the links at the top of this very page.  This is the kind of article that folks looking to wikipedia need.  WP:Not paper.  To be sure, sourcing and links can (and should) be improved.  But that is at bottom a content dispute, not a reason for WP:AFD.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly encyclopedic. There's nothing wrong with article that cannot be fixed. Surachit (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Draftify per WP:TNT (the process of which has already begun) - sure, it might be notable, but in its current state, I don't think it's ready to be in mainspace. Move it to draft, fix it up, then move it back. If it's significantly improved by the time the discussion ends, consider this a keep. ansh 666 01:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll have to agree with the AFD proponent that the article has issues, but the article can be improved and is notable in itself, the reasons listed do not warrant a delete. Garlicolive (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the most deadliest animals to humans.... man?!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article clearly states that humans come in second place to mosquitoes based on their yearly kill count.  D r e a m Focus  22:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly encyclopedic. There's nothing wrong with article that cannot be fixed Lubbad85 (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Topic is notable with a lot of WP:RS lists, like Telegraph, and notably, the Encyclopædia Britannica.  The article however as noted by the nom has problems with some non-Encyclopædic sourcing (I removed one), and a composite list which is WP:OR terrority.  I don't think the article is so bad that I would WP:TNT it, and the BBC is a decent RS, however, I only give it the benefit of the doubt because of the strong notability of the topic, which is the most dominant criteria. Britishfinance (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – A notable topic that meets WP:LISTN. North America1000 23:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep somewhat to my surprise. I do have a quibble with one entry: mosquitoes don't kill people - it is the mosquito-borne diseases. Maybe clarify in a footnote... --mikeu talk 00:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, mosquitoes don't kill people directly. Rather, they are the agent transmitting Mosquito-borne disease.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 00:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * Comment "List of deadliest animals to humans" - To get a list that actually measures what the article states you would need relative numbers not absolute ones: The vast majority of mosquitos we meet do not kill us. Same for humans. When meeting an angry hippo you should be more scared then when riding the subway everyday. There are just many mosqitoes and many humans - but both aren't very deadly as individuals. This is magazine-popular-science, it doesn't make a lot of sense -  and i don't think its even supposed to. These list seem to be rather emotional and geared to please certain crowds. Why else would they include humans in the list? A world population of 7,800,000,000 people should makes it obvious that we're not exactly "deadly" to ourselves. I suspect it's there because it has a "wow"-factor and misanthropy has always been popular with certain crowds. Also if u count indirect killings like with the mosquito, shouldn't you count other indirect killings? What about allergic shocks? Humans transmit disease to other humans. I think what would really help that article is a list with relative numbers instead of absolute ones. A list that factors in things like the frequency of encounters. Unfortunately I don't think one exists. I think there's no need to change anything because it's actually obvious, but the lists on the article would accuratetly be called "Animals that as a group cause the most fatalities in humans". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:1105:4901:3C47:DA05:ABFE:E979 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)