Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogsbite.org

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dogsbite.org

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This website lacks notability. WP:FAILN. The talk page indicated that this topic is controversial. The page is written as an attack on the website host personally. WP:ATTACK. I'm not sure that more editing can bring in a WP:NPOV nor am I sure that this subject is notable enough to bother. Tangurena (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The site is ranked about 494,000 on Alexa which certainly shows a lack of reach. Tangurena (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tangurena (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject covered by multiple independent reliable sources in a non-trivial manner, meeting WP:GNG. Article content reflects the reliable sources and is not an attack page. PearlSt82 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tangurena (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tangurena (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bronwen's book, PT, Buzzfeed and Radio-Canada.ca. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes GNG. Does come across a bit as an attack but 1) that's a reflection of the sources 2) can be remedied. Hydromania (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a notable crank website. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean 'notorious', Guy/JzG? Nomopbs (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The whole pro-pitbull/anti-pitbull debate is not a mainstream topic (even though passionately polarized) and the article is about one bit player. There is not sufficient coverage to maintain a NPOV, therefore the article is a not notable topic. The article was originally created as a WP:G10 criticism, and despite edits to migrate towards NPOV, it continues to veer off of NPOV towards criticism with every other edit. Is there WP:COI with editors, or is the subject simply not sufficiently notable to attract editors with more NPOVs? Nomopbs (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's true, ctrl-f "pit bull" in Breed-specific legislation and you get plenty of hits. Articles like [1] seems to hint at mainstream-ness. Anyway, NPOV in the WP-context "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, per definition, any article that passes GNG can be NPOV (I'm not saying this one currently is), even if the usable sources are 100% critical. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another user mentioned that the site is below in Alexa, it is indeed in position 481.694 in the world, BUT it is 127.728 in the USA. Considering how strong the breed Pitbull is in the USA compared to other countries, this would favor a keep. No one will dispute there is a bias in the site, just as there is a bias in PETA, but the notability guidelines it passes, when it comes to dog people a high amount of people know this site and the media mentions it on occasion. Also, although the site may be biased there is a ton of research that really highlights the pitfalls and dangers of a pit bull:

http://sma.org/southern-medical-journal/article/characteristics-of-dog-bites-in-arkansas/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5682160/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305270428_Characteristics_of_1616_Consecutive_Dog_Bite_Injuries_at_a_Single_Institution https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261032/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51034290_Mortality_Mauling_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs Considering these factors it would be better to keep the article.Garlicolive (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2019 (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.