Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most dangerous animals


 * 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 Delete. There are too many things wrong here. As was pointed out, if an article such as List of human fatalities caused by animals each year could be created, and reliably sourced, then it may be viable. But this article as it stands (a) is mainly OR (b) is unclear about the definition of "animals" - does that include insects? (c) is unclear about causation - do mosquitoes actually cause malaria deaths, or are they purely a mechanism? and (d) leaves logic holes - does the fact that, say, cattle, horses or kangaroos cause many deaths every year through road traffic accidents make them dangerous? (e) is flimsily sourced (WP:V). Black Kite 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of most dangerous animals

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete as POV article. While it might be possible to ascertain how many deaths are caused by certain animals, verifying it all is essentially impossible. Ranking most dangerous animals by deaths, when you can't verify those deaths, is bad. Even the one source the article currently has can't make up its mind whether mosquitos cause 2 million or 3 million deaths per year. That's a variance of 50%. This list can never be accurate. Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV article per nom. I mean, heck, I could put my cat on here because she bites everyone hard. It would also be very neary impossible to verify the number of deaths by certain animals (deranged Siamese-tabby mixes included). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article is outlet for POV editing and original research. EJF (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I think I'll stay away from the polar bears and mosquitos and croc's, as for domestic dogs, I'll take my chances. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete One of the most utter nonsensical article I have ever seen. Complete original research.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Same thing as Articles for deletion/Organisms that are dangerous to humans. Punkmorten (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When I removed the prod tag, I figured there must have been an article about this sort of thing already but I didn't know the name. I think this article is different than that one. This list would show the top 10 or top 20 animals responsible for human deaths each year, while the other article would show any animal considered dangerous. --Pixelface (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems a shame to delete it. Wikipedia could be a great way to collate reliable citations. On the other hand, perhaps there are not going to be sufficient reliable citations for this article in my lifetime (especially if I go near a mozzie). Smithsonian magazine, January 2006 gives an example of the problem: Although accurate numbers are hard to come by, lore has it that hippos kill more people each year than lions, elephants, leopards, buffaloes and rhinos combined. I'd accept sources giving 50% uncertainty as being statistically responsible, but I guess the sources available are simply not conclusive enough. OK, it goes against my natural inclinations, but... Delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Subjective, unmaintainable list. Author seems to be an SPA to boot.  Blueboy96 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Like Fayenatic, I liked the article (or more to the point, I liked the America Online link), but ILIKEIT isn't good enough for a keep, nor is "INTERESTING". Since the AOL article itself is unsourced, I consider this one to be unsourced as well.  However, the premise might make a good article if reliable statistics could be found-- a ranking, in effect, by number of deaths caused by a particular animal.  Even with the data, it's still subjective-- the delayed reaction from a mosquito bite ranks ahead of the bloody violent death from a shark bite, and lions, tigers and cougars are all listed as "big cat".  Mandsford (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't require sources to cite their sources. And I also found it strange at first that "big cats" was a category, but just as there are many different kinds of sharks, jellyfish, bears, etc, there are different kinds of cats. We even have an article on Big cat. I assume each of the articles for each of these animals have statistics on the number of human deaths they cause yearly. That information can simply be collated into this article. I suggest this article be renamed, given the subjective nature of the term "most dangerous." --Pixelface (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Somehow, an entertainment piece on America Online doesn't strike me as being a very reliable source. I'm not sure what you mean by "we"... Mandsford (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are lots of government statistics on the causes of human death and the big killers like malaria are very well documented. Here's an example of a reliable source. The article just needs work. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I think there is some room for an article discussing animal attacks and the risks thereof, but a list is never going to work. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. I just recently removed a prod from this page and added a citation to AOL Travel. I believe this article can be improved. It just lists animals and the number of human fatalities they cause each year. The page can be renamed to List of human fatalities caused by animals each year if you don't like the current title, and citations can be added. National Geographic says "Malaria kills more than a million people worldwide each year—90 percent of them in Africa; 70 percent children under the age of five." The shark article says "The average number of fatalities per year between 2001 and 2006 from unprovoked shark attacks is 4.3." and cites this site. We don't have to verify each death, we just have to cite a reliable source. Animal caused fatalities is a notable topic. Animal Planet has the show Ocean's Deadliest. There was a TV show called The World's Most Dangerous Animals. I'm sure the Discovery Channel has several shows on the topic. --Pixelface (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename or Delete I would support the article if the name were changed (as indicate above) to List of human fatalities caused by animals each year. The current title introduces gross (no pun intended) subjective POV bias into the content of the list.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP IT COUDL SAVE UR LIFE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if it is well-sourced and renamed to something more objective. The AOL article is interesting, but obviously only focused on the "scary" animals, because it neglects the deaths caused by dogs and horses, for example. --Itub (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve.  I went to search for just such a list, and specifically chose to look at the wikipedia first because my previous experiences with it being much better referenced and organized.   I think the subject matter is appropriate to wikipedia as per Lists (stand-alone lists).  Unlike the "dangerous organisms" list mentioned above, this one appears to subject that isn't too general (as mentioned in the stand-alone lists guidelines).  I see no reason why this subject matter has to be PoV and I don't think it is that highly PoV right now, although it could certainly be improved.  The exact number of people killed/hurt per year is not required for such a list either.  A google search on most dangerous animals shows a lot of potential sources/references, as well as a lot of interest in this subject.  I would say that this article needs to be given at least another month or two to improve.  Wrs1864 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: people keep saying there can be references for this. This is flatly false. There is no central repository for a definitive database that lists all deaths from X type of creature. The list can never be accurate because of this. It's based in large part on speculation, wild estimates, and impossibly unrectifiable data. Does anyone honestly think that record keeping of deaths from mosquitoes in Kenya is going to be as accurate as Zimbabwe, or South Africa, or Indonesia? We can't possibly keep this list accurate. It's pure speculation and wild guesses, nothing more. We might as well try to keep track of the most popular episode of Law & Order by the number of times it's actually been watched...worldwide...in every country...on every TV. You can't. Neither can you from this list. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that an exact count is practically impossible. However, if there are published estimates from respectable organizations, then we could quote those. --Itub (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, if they had some connection to reality. The only source cited in this article can't agree on whether a million people died from mosquitoes or not. We can all agree that people die from mosquitoes. Developing a list of the most dangerous things based on that? Hardly. Besides, people don't die from mosquito bites. They die from the diseases carried by them. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you checked for references in the mosquito and malaria articles? This is a list of animals responsible for the most human deaths each year. --Pixelface (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And Mosquitoes aren't even animals. Neither is Malaria. As I noted, mosquitoes don't kill people. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mosquitoes are most certainly animals from a biological point of view. Humans too, so we should add humans at the top of the list. ;-) --Itub (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * keep Sourcing isn't that hard for most of these. Itub actually makes a valid point we should note in the article that humans are not counted for this purpose but would be on top otherwise. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (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.