Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squirrel attacks

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 merge to Animal attacks. SoWhy 18:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Is this a notable topic? Appears to be a WP:POINTy riff on Animal attacks and its subpages (which are disastrous). Plantdrew (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to animal attacks. Does not seem notable in itself, no need for a short stub like this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge As the man said. Not worth an article. Now a gopher, there's a fiend... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{“Pocket gophers are pugnacious and fight man or dog as quickly as they would an animal of their own size. To the gopher, everything that moves is an enemy and is attacked with vicious wheezing and savage bites. The toe of a boot or a stick is seized, and the heavy incisors make deep cuts into wood or quickly through leather…The gopher’s vision is extremely limited, and it seems not to see an object until very close, when its instinct of self-preservation suggests a prompt attack."[1] Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

^{Hence the little known preference for sabatons among adventurous hoosiers :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

^{Well then, perhaps the sabaton article needs a gallery to include these rodents. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

• Redirect Clearly a joke, and content is unencyclopedic trivia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I created the article in good faith. I had never heard of WP:POINTfy until this morning. I am not even aware of being frustrated about any wikipedia policy and I have not any point to make. I also created the article Animal attacks and so I can't be motivated to produce a parody of that article or its editors. This article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the specific topic of Squirrel attacks. This stand alone article has been created with WP:GNG in mind. My intent is to adhere, in good faith, to these guidelines.
  • This article a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • The secondary sources WP:SECONDARY are reliable, verifiable, and from well-established news outlets that are considered to be reliable WP:NEWSORG
  • It contains no original research
  • The independent sources excludes works produced by the article's subject (squirrels) or someone affiliated with them.
  • WP is not (WP:NOT) a repository of everything and this article is not a dictionary entry, definition, a usage, slang, and/or idiom guide, personal essay, discussion forum, advocacy forum, personal attack on squirrels, scandal-mongering, self promotion, marketing, advertising, internet directory, blog, personal web page, memorial or dating service.
  • The topic is not new and can be found in sources from previous years and even decades.
  • The article was just created yesterday and has not had time to be fully expanded with reliable sources.
  • The category Animal attacks contains other similar articles, some which aren't as adequately sourced as this one. That is to say, articles on attacks by different animals are quite common. Even more common are the articles that are categorized by the deaths of people by animal attacks.
  • Though arguably a humorous topic, the humor comes from the sources, not the editor (me). I am sure that creating a non-humorous article about a humorous topic can be done, but it doesn't need to be done in that way.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it's a good faith effort. But do you think there is sufficient material to build it into a more substantial article? Otherwise it really would be better off as a section in the main article. There's rarely any benefit (neither to the reader nor to us) in scattering small sub-topics among separate articles.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It should really begin to shape up by the weekend. My other articles, along the same lines, have always been improved to the point of satisfaction to those who have originally suggested their deletions. It is rare that an article that I create gets deleted. In almost every instance, the nomination is done the same day that I've begun working on the article, even with the {{underconstruction}} in place. You won't be disappointed.

I am sorry to inform you that I am unable to locate enough secondary sources to create an article: Pocket gopher attacks. The reference above is the only one I could locate. I haven't consulted the holdings of the University of Pittsburgh's Libraries, but I don't think it would pass a deletion discussion. I will include the above information in the Animal attacks article, as consolation.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SNOWBALL Merge' a brief mention of "attack" squirrels back to animal attacks. You had your little WP:POINTy joke. Wish it has been funny enough to justify wasting other editors time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a little AGF here? There's no indication this is meant to be POINTy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Animal attacks We can't have separate pages for attacks from all animals unless they are exceptionally different from the lot. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We actually DO have dozens of articles on animal attacks (by species, breed or genus). See the Category: Animal attacks. I did not write all of them or even most of them. There are enough moose attacks for a separate article but I haven't gotten to that yet. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to animal attacks. I'm loathe to dump more content back into that mess of a parent article, but there's very little to suggest this should stand on its own. Isolated squirrel bite incidents get attention because they are unexpected, not because they are a significant cause of injury. Indeed, both ICD-9 and ICD-10 single out rat bites (for which we lack an article) and dog bites (which we have) as being of special significant. Squirrels are just another part of ICD-10's "other mammals". And for good reason. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough material for a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel bites have their own ICD code, remarkably.^[2][3] Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (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.