Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incidents of animal sexual abuse

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. postdlf (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of incidents of animal sexual abuse

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary selection of reports, none involving notable persons. Zoophilia already covers this topic. No clear criteria for inclusion, one would expect that if it aimed to be comprehensive the list would be extremely long. Secondly, some of the items mention charges or allegations against named people without saying whether they were convicted, c.f.

WP:BLPCRIME. LukeSurl^{t c} 09:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. :
WP:BLPCRIME crime is when you directly assert someone with the allegation like.. "Mr.x is a serial killer and rapist, who..." None of the text of this whole page seems to be doing so. If you see pages, such as Rape statistics, Gang rape, and others, you will find large amount of incidents to be noted in the page, in which criminal of the case is still not convicted. OccultZone (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for all of the reasons outlined at the very recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada. These are just arbitrary lists created to "name and shame" individuals who would likely sue the authors were this hosted on a private blog. Stalwart111 10:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111, I disagree. I looked into the article that you have mentioned, that one was interestingly copy pasted article, while this one is original. Another thing is that "name and shame" applies when the name is not published by anyone else, but these names are published by large number of reliable sources. You are confusing 2 things with one. OccultZone (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, "name and shame" applied there and it applies here too, where people claim that just because a news article somewhere included someone's name, they can dispense with

WP:BLPCRIME and publish it here. Doesn't work that way. That one was original too and was deleted - it then came back from the dead in a different form (that AFD) and was deleted again. Stalwart111 11:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Since these cases are highly rare and notable, where would do you think they should be written then? If this is not a separate page. OccultZone (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rare and notable are not the same thing. None of the "entries" are likely to pass

does it exist to provide a directory of non-notable alleged criminal acts. So the simple answer to your question is: nowhere. Stalwart111 11:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed, what if this page includes only those events where the ~~victim~~ perpetrator is officially convicted and sentenced by the court? OccultZone (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - conviction is not a notability criteria either. Stalwart111 11:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the actual reason behind the deletion of this article or one you

WP:BLPCRIME, but now, if only those names are added that have been convicted. What can be the issue? OccultZone (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

That it violates

WP:BLPCRIME is one of a number of reasons for deletion. But fixing the article so that it no longer explicitly violates policy does not then mean it automatically meets our inclusion criteria. That's like finding a car with no doors, no engine and no steering wheel covered with a tarpaulin and saying, "I removed the tarpaulin, now we can go for a drive". Yeah? Stalwart111 11:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Can't get you, you can explain if there's some issue left with the page. OccultZone (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT pretty much covers everything we haven't covered so far. Stalwart111 12:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - I've tried to improve the article, but I'm persuaded by the arguments of LukeSurl and Stalwart111, particularly the deletion arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cruelty to animal incidents in Canada. None of the incidents in itself is notable by Wikipedia standards, nor any of the people involved, and I can't see how it can be turned into a useful article. Ruby Murray (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few cases where the alleged one has been convicted though. OccultZone (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this can of worms per nom, per BLP1E, per BLPCRIME, per NOTDIRECTORY, per NOTNEWS, per EVENT, per CRIME.
Sorbet 13:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no indication that any of the items are notable; no selection criteria, so list appears to be a random and arbitrary collection. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stalwart111, Non notable list fails
WP:BLPCRIME. Davey2010T 18:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

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.