Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chimp attack

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 due to insufficient amount of articles to justify a list. However, points to Torkmann for the use of "simian rampages". Smashville^talk 21:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chimp attack

This "list" was created out of an inappropriate disambiguation page that was being deleted. There is no need for a list this small and particular that will never be larger and the topic is not notable per se. Drawn Some (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We do have articles on several other types of animal attacks, so a notable article is likely possible. (The current version isn't it, obviously.) Also there are a few more notable attacks that could be added to the list, but probably not enough for a legitimate list. I would suggest a combination article that talks about the concept in general and then lists specific cases in summary style, if anyone is so inclined to write it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although it was tagged as a dab by the author, I thought it was more of a list than a dab which is why I added the intro statement saying it was a list. This was not in an attempt to avoid deletion. (Page was originally listed on WP:RfD, but I closed it on procedural grounds after the page's original creator changed it from a redirect to a list). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this would be more appropriate as part of a list of animal attacks. The continued existence of this article doesn't bother me, but I am kind of baffled that there are at least two chimpanzees who have their own Wikipedia article (Travis (chimpanzee) and Santino (chimpanzee)). The latter one "planned hundreds of stone-throwing attacks on visitors to the zoo" -- one more thing for the Department of Homeland Security to worry about. Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, Category:Famous chimpanzees has 22 members. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - and the notability was that it had not previous been clear that the species was capable of that degree of foresight and planning. It has been discussed in at least two scientific articles. DGG (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but the article does not deal with it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is too trivial to deserve an article, even if the individual chimps deserve articles (which is debatable). There are no external citations, and no indication that this topic has received any outside coverage (again, even if individual incidents have been covered, this is not the same as coverage for the topic). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proposer of the original RDF discussion for this page when it was a redirect wrote "Generic term inappropriately redirects to an article about a particular chimpanzee...". Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) then proceeded to add a link to one other true example and one fictitious example so that that wording did not apply, and the RFD was then procedurally closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @857 · 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @888 · 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient number of articles to justify a list at this point. DGG (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the two articles on chimp attacks can simply link to each other, and I'm sure the article on Chimpanzees mentions them already. Oddly, the 2005 attack in California somehow doesn't have an article. Abductive (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing wrong with the topic in concept, but any number of valid article titles might be consumed by deletable articles. This is just one example. -Miskaton (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has great potential for expansion. Chimp attacks seem to be inherently notable due to their graphic nature. While there are only two attacks listed so far, there possibly may be thousands of notable simian rampages that should have their own articles on Wikipedia. Torkmann (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- lol. Abductive (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2009 (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.