Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orca attacks on humans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Yes, many strange POVs are at times exhibited on Wikipedia, but I think very few of us can come to grips with the notion that there can be such a thing as "a anti-Orcan and anti-conservationist POV to slander Orcans". Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orca attacks on humans

Orca attacks on humans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete: Extremely POV article and collection of five non-notable incidents. Wikipedia is not soapbox. These five incidents do not deserve for a separate article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete very POV, two dozen incidents, over 30+ years, for all killer whales, is really nothing special or notable. nneonneo talk 05:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't find it POV so much as simply not noteworthy; Orcas attacking humans is not inherently notable, and people regularly get attacked by lots of other animals, which makes the news, but we don't list all dog attacks. One of the incidents is noted in the appropriate orca's article, and the other two don't seem to have involved anything particularly noteworthy, so I endorse the deletion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I simply do not understand this nomination. What POV do you think the article promotes? How is it different from the other articles in Category:Animal attacks? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with the article on Orcas. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC) In light of being informed that this was spun out of a parent article, changing to Keep. Has WP:RS, passes WP:NOT. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The article was created by spinning it out of Orca because the Orca article was both too long and gave too much weight to the rare phenomenon of attacks on humans. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems like an okay split from orca; the only POV I could possibly see would be that it's giving undue weight where attacks are more rare, but that can be fixed by putting more emphasis in the sentence that points out the rarity. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Orca attacks is not much notable to have its own article. An article under this title is certainly POV pushing and soapboxing. An article titled Human attacks on Orcas will be more notable bacuse the threat they have from humans. We cannot have an article with four incidents. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We have lots of articles that document a single incident. What is your minimum number of incidents that an article has to cover? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep since merging does not seem to be an option. Also per Clayoquot. Garion96 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is still such a small part of orca to be spinning off. Why not pull out all of Orcas and humans? Potatoswatter (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Considering that we are talking about Killer Whales it's actually completely reasonable to have this content. Because the main article is lengthy this is perfectly acceptable as a sub article. Sure, the article would benefit from further development, detailing other notable attacks. POV? What POV is this article supposedly written from? Orcan Supremacist? --JayHenry (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is written from a anti-Orcan and anti-conservationist POV to slander Orcans. By that sense, Human attacks on Orcas will be more notable. Attack by X animal articles are only notable if the particular animal is will-known for attacking humans. We do not have Attack by X animal articles for each and every animal. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If the highest compliment one can receive on Wikipedia is to be accused of having a POV opposite to one's actual POV, I think I've just been canonized. Seriously though, this article presents some verifiable facts that received a fair amount of attention from reliable third-party sources. It is interesting to see how this article comes across because if it comes across as biased then we ought to fix it. Can you suggest a different way to approach the subject matter? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, the article was written with the motivation to keep the interest of pro-Whaling lobby groups. Wikipedia is not the place for pro-Whaling lobbying. The article itself states that attack from Orca is not any serious issue, nor it is notable. Only those articles should be written where the attacking animal is well-known and regarded by the scientific community for being dangerous to humans. Orca is not the case. Four isolated incidents do not constitute an encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Try some WP:AGF, eh? The author is a long-standing contributor here, with contributions in many areas. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Pro-Whaling? Are you kidding? Garion96 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the author has some Colbertesque fear of whales? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
By detailing the attacks, Clayoquot is trying to stir up our deeply ingrained Orcaphobia? (We repress it in polite society, perhaps?) You know what? I think she's right! After reading this article I now believe we must kill all the Orcas before they kill us!! But look, all kidding aside, this is a really reasonable "Attack by X animal" because, again, they are known as Killer Whales, and thus readers are going to be interested in the truth behind that. This article could not actually cause Orcaphobic sentiments in any remotely educated or intelligent person. --JayHenry (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"After reading this article I now believe we must kill all the Orcas before they kill us" - it is your personal opinion. Wikipedia does not run on the basis of your personal opinion. Orcas never be so dangerous to humans that humans should kill them all. Because Orcas are not regarded threat to humans by the scientific community. Four isolated incidents do not deserve for a separate encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious I was joking. The claim that this was written for "the interest of pro-whaling lobby groups" does not stand up to a shred of scrutiny. Is that even a serious accusation? How would publicizing an Orca attack at Sea World help the pro-whaling lobby? People don't support whaling for purposes of revenge. --JayHenry (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to think that if there is a prospect for the article to be expanded beyond merely listing the attacks it would make a feasible article, but it should otherwise be deleted. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where WP:SOAP comes into this, but is there any prospect of expanding the article so that it is more than a simple list of attacks, providing some cultural, biological or historical context for these attacks? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: WP:YFA states that just because both Fact A and Fact B are true does NOT mean that A caused B, or vice-versa. This article is giving a totally wrong impression of Orca as if they are known for attacking humans and humans are vulnerable to Orca. In fact the opposite is true. Environmental degradation and human activities are threatening the existence of this animal. The article Orca clearly states that Wild Orcas are usually not considered a threat to humans. This article documents some isolated incidents. Here is a source which documents some isolated cases, even these are not by wild Orcas, these are isolated reports of captive Orcas attacking at marine theme parks. This little fact should be mentioned in the article Orcas, the isolated cases are not worthy of having an article. Should we have List of Europeans killed in plane accidents involving the United States, List of American killed in the European Union, List of Asians killed while traveling in American airliners? This article in its present form is WP:TRIVIA because the subject of Orcas attack against humans in not inherently notable. Many general references on Orcas do not mention this trivial fact that there are some isolated cases of attacks invloving captive Orcas [1], [2], [3]. This article is one-sided, gratuitously biased and misleading. WP:INDISCRIMINATE states Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. This "article" violates many of the policies. There should not be any article under this title because the topic is not inherently notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oto, the very first sentence of this article says "Wild Orcas are not usually considered a threat to humans." How can you claim it's misleading people about the danger of orcas when it acknowledges this in the very first sentence? The third sentence acknowledges that the documented attacks are from domestic orcas. How is it misleading when it directly acknowledges these things in the first paragraph? Nobody here is trying to engage in pro-whaling lobbying. --JayHenry (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I said that the topic is not inherently notable to have its own article. I don't want to repeat it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Referencing could be improved, but the article actually shows how rare these incidents are, contra the nominator's unfocused ranting ("gratuitous, biased, and misleading"). --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Oto, these debates can come up with any kind of solution to the issue. The information in this article belongs somewhere in WP because it's referenced (hence WP:N), orca is too bloated to accommodate it, and the present article is obviously (somewhat comically) one sided. There's gonna be a compromise between erasing it and keeping as is. If we stay cool. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as this appears to have enough references to be verifiable. Further, the fact that orca's rarely attack humans would seem to make those rare orca attacks more notable, not less. (And really.... an anti-orcan POV? Seriously? The first sentence of the article says that orca attacks are rare.) Bfigura (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep needs work but a significant topic and reasonable list. JJL (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see there is systematic bias in wikipedia. The "Keep" votes would have turned into "Delete" if the title of the article was Human attacks on Orcas. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur, please see:
When humans attack whales it's called whaling. Wikipedia has literally about a hundred articles on different aspects of humans attacking whales. People are arguing to keep the article because it's covered in reliable sources and hence "notable". Absolutely nobody is trying to push a pro-whaling POV. --JayHenry (t) 00:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm totally confused by the POV accusations. Sure orca attacks are rare (it says as much in the article), but it seems sensible to catalog the ones that do occur (and get loads of press coverage). Just last week I read a case in my employment law class about the Sea World secretary who was mauled by Shamu (she was trying to claim that Shamu riding was outside the scope of her employment and thus was not limited by workers' compensation damages; she lost). Interesting to see that this isn't the only time it has occurred to orca handlers. Mangostar (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepThe POV claim is strange. The attacks are well documented. Edison (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -events are rare enough to be notable and counted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 29 April 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.