Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet killer


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep.   Icestorm815  •  Talk  00:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Internet killer

 * See also: and .
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research and duplicate of content from List of Craigslist killers (see Articles for deletion/List of Craigslist killers). None of the sources used in this article actually support the subject of an "Internet killer". This subject was created by a Wikipedia editor and does not exist outside of Wikipedia. No secondary sources on the subject can be found. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please NOTE that the title of the "Internet killer" article was changed by to "Internet homicide" by  ↜Just me, here, now … 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Please also note that the entire topic is 100% original research and the 14 words pulled out of Psychiatric mental health nursing on Google Books is not actually a definition as the editor is claiming. It's a bogus article and a misuse of sources. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The article was created just two days ago, and there is only one comment each by two editors on the article's talk page. This AfD is premature, as is the claim "No secondary sources on the subject can be found." Шизомби (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is a duplicate of the original research found in List of Craigslist killers.  I cannot find any secondary sources on the subject.  There is nothing premature about that observation.  The creator of the article is using Wikipedia as place to publish their origianl research on the subject, and repeated discussions with the creating editor on various pages (including Talk:List of Craigslist killers) have made that perfectly clear.  If you have actual secondary sources for the subject of an "Internet killer" please provide them.  I looked, and I found none, which is why I nominated this article for deletion.  The sources in the article are not about the subject of an "Internet killer". Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: See the books listed on the talk page. More to follow. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw it, and don't see any explicit reference to the subject of "Internet killer". Perhaps you would be so kind as to give a passage.  Again, you are interpreting sources to fit your theory.  That's OR.  We need a source that directly refers to the concept, defines it, spells it out, provides examples, and discusses it.  None exist. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. No secondary sources on the subject of an "Internet killer" exist.  This is a personal research project by the creator of the article.  Wikipedia isn't used to publish original thought. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Re: Duplication: This article received material last night (look up the history) during a time when the Craigslist killer page had been suddenly blanked and then changed to a one-line dab by an editor caled Justmehernow. A discussion to move the material from Craigslist killer to this page and reduce Craigslist killer to dab status was underway at the time, on the Craigslist killer talk page -- and it seemed to me that although Justmenowhere acted unprofessionally and prematurely (and caused Viriditas to become quite enraged), the move was going ahead, so i acted in good faith on our previous discussions and inserted the Craigslist material here -- never thinking that it was to be duplicated that same night at the List of Craigslist killers page -- which i had not yet seen. I believe that the page to be deleted should be "List of Craigslist killers" -- a badly planned name for an article -- which is, by the way, currently in discussion for merging into the newly creating page called Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users, another page i think should be deleted. Re: Viriditas' charges that "no secondary sources exist" and that this page is "original research" -- secondary sources on "internet killer" do exist. Please allow time for me and others to bring them in. See the talk page. Note also the several uses of the term as a character name ("The Internet Killer") in fiction, added just last night, and dating back to *before* the first actual real-life case was thus dubbed by the media. Be patient; this is a large topic (larger and more substantial than "Craigslist killer") and it also has substantial sociological links to Online predator, which deals with crimes against children, primarily, and tangential sociological links to Internet suicide as well. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic doesn't exist. You invented it.  You say that secondary sources are coming Real Soon Now.  Name an author and a reliable source where I can find more about the topic. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * COMMENT It was sort of a Three Card Monte deal: (1) I did move Craigslist killer to List of Craigslist killers (2) but it was the brand-new disambiguation page (freshly named Craigslist killer, after the original article had migrated to its also-new "List of" title) that had ended up being turned itself into a redirect. Super-convoluted, I know -- but!...just so everybody knows!  ↜Just me, here, now … 06:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Topic not obscure at all, with every likelihood of contributors' further fleshing it out!  ↜Just me, here, now … 06:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Prove it! Name a single author in a reliable source who discusses the topic.  It doesn't exist.  Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're saying doesn't exist and what would constitute a reliable source for you. Шизомби (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reliable source that discusses the subject of an "Internet killer" using those exact terms nor the content of the current article; If there were, you could point me to one. This is pure original research.  Read WP:RS to see what is classified as a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reading of NOR, RS, Synthesis, etc. is far more narrow than the texts of those policies. Honestly, try and take a step back; things between you and cat got ugly on both sides, and I think you're taking it out on the article and making specious justifications for it.  Have murderers used the internet to find victims?  Have they been labeled an "internet killer" or some variation thereon?  Have police reports and the news articles about those police reports discussed this?  Have other writers discussed this?  Have films and books taken made use of this idea as well? Yes in all cases.  Is there some OR in the article?  Yes to that too.  There may be a better name for this article, and better sources to add, and some stuff that should be taken out, but it's not original research on the whole.  Шизомби (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have described an interpetation of the concept. You cannot provide a single RS because they don't exist.  We don't write articles based on interpretations.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source.  In any article, I should be able to verify a particular statement in a source.  Please show me a single source where I can verify  the statements and conclusions in this article.  They don't exist.  When I point this out, one of you tries to change the article title to make the facts fit the OR.  But after the third page move, the OR is still in the article.  What can be salvaged?  Provide me with one source that briefly discusses the topic.  You can't, because this article is a personal essay based on original research. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't inclusion/exclusion criteria apply across the board and not catch as catch can or willy-nilly? It seems that some here are somewhat overplaying your hand about a need to establish notability for the phenomenon. Off the top of my head, it seems to be a premise that"*' List-type' articles and article sections must contain sources that extol the notability of the combination of the underlying components of such lists itself"-- is that at all close to what you are arguing here? But, if this is so, wouldn't such a criteria be enforceable upon any random set of list-type articles that one could assemble from throughout the encyclopedia?
 * But...let's see!
 * "Presidents" and "nickname" generates Presidential nicknames. "Nay." These are culled from the sources without citing any sources that comment on the importance of nicknames to presidential politics or whatever.
 * "Obama" and "family" generates Family of Barack Obama. Yet no sources are provided that explain the importance of this combination.
 * "Socks (cat)" and "cultural references" generates the section Socks (cat). "Nay." No reference explains the importance of Socks the cat to American culture.
 * "Nikola Tesla" and "popular culture" generates Nikola Tesla in popular culture. Ditto.
 * "LGBT," "characters," "television," and "soap operas" are combined to form the section List of television shows with LGBT characters. No references support the cultural significance of the combination of these components.
 * So we gotta conclude a "nay" there (and rightly so, to avoid mass deletions of quality material from the encyclopedia!)  ↜Just me, here, now … 07:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So we gotta conclude a "nay" there (and rightly so, to avoid mass deletions of quality material from the encyclopedia!)  ↜Just me, here, now … 07:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So we gotta conclude a "nay" there (and rightly so, to avoid mass deletions of quality material from the encyclopedia!)  ↜Just me, here, now … 07:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

*Delete, as I already commented at the AFD discussion for List of Craigslist killers, this article is novel synthesis and original research, and Wikipedia should not be coining terms and defining phenomena. -- M P er el 05:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC) (see further comments below supporting rename to Internet homicide, given the addition of sources to support it.) -- M P er el  19:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we seat patrons without dinner jackets at the bar and patrons with dinner jackets at tables, we're still serving customers coming in with/without jackets. That is, if "illegal activities by users of Craigslist" isn't a neologism, how is "killings by Craigslist users"? And, if it is to be thought that the premise"*' The article under review's Internet killer doesn't merit encyclopedic coverage due to some kind of 'neologism' within its defining parameters '"-- is true, then it only follows we must delete the list (as concisely titled) not keep it, anyway, via merging it, except instead to Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users (as more cumberbunly...I mean, cumbersomely, titled). It is important to be consistent and well-defined in such criteria, or one class of the public might think they're not welcome as patrons because of their brogue dialect when it's observed other parties who speak in Yankee tones get in, in informal attire, regardless of what inclusionary standard ostensibly is imposed..... How would those upholding the "neologism" etc. line defend your position in response to this line of attack, as it were?  ↜Just me, here, now … 08:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide a single reliable source that discusses the subject of an "Internet killer" and reflects the content in this article. If you cannot do so, then the article must be deleted per Wikipedia's core content policy, WP:NOR. As it stands right now, the main points in the article called "Internet killer" were pieced together using information from multiple sources that are not directly relevant to the topic.  WP:SYNTHESIS prevents us from doing this.  The ideas and thoughts expressed in the article about "Internet killer" represent the opinions of the editor who wrote it and nobody else.  The subject of the topic about an "Internet killer" cannot be found outside Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, we're really talking past each other here, doncha think?  ↜Just me, here, now … 11:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. Sources are the foundation for our articles.  Without them, we delete.  Please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, in one breath you're arguing there is not enough sourcing for the whole piece and in the very next breath you're saying to merge most of its content -- chock-full of sources! -- elsewhere. But an argument for article deletion simply ain't equivalent to an argument for article merger, so you should get your rhetorical house in order. Sure the article has weak spots sourcing-wise here and there, in some verbiage attempting an overview. But simply remove the whole into or write your own -- don't get stuck on delete then in the next motion create an article that's a content fork......  ↜Just me, here, now … 12:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a single source in Internet killer directly supports the subject. This is a classic case of original research.  To counter my claim, please provide one single reliable source that discusses the subject.  Just one. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Comment] Viriiditas, if you had not put an AfD on this page within 2 days of it being created, it would already be redirected to Internet homicide, the logical counterpart to Internet suicide. A batch of sources (some of which use the tefrm Internet homicide and some of which use the term Internet killer) were already listed on the article's talk page when you wrote here that there are no sources. I shall be incorporating them into the article, and i want you to stop interfering with its development now and let the rest of us get on with our work. cat yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is 100% original research and you haven't provided any definition for "Internet homicide". You merely grabbed 14 words from Google Books and claim that it's a definition of some kind.  There is actually no evidence that is true.  If it is a definition, you will provide evidence.  You can't because it doesn't exist. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears you've already renamed to internet homicide in the middle of an AFD? That only confuses the discussion and process. Even under that title, there still needs to be sources that actually describe the phenomenon and there are none.  The article even explicitly claims "internet killer" is a journalistic term, yet provides no sources that actually use such a neologism describing the alleged phenomenon.  The other article you mention as a logical counterpart, internet suicide, appears to have some synthesis issues as well since the sources only specifically discuss the particular phenomenon of Japanese suicide pacts, not the more broad phenomenon implied by the title. -- M P er el  18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know who you mean by "you." You seem to be addressing me (catherine), since your note comes in reply to mine -- but i did not make this redirect. I found it this way this morning and simply continued to work on the article.


 * I also do not know what you mean by "no sources." Doesn't the definition in "Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing" cut any ice with you? If not, then what, exactly, would you consider a "source"? Please be specific.


 * cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I mistook the anon ip (I'm assuming you are identifying yourself as the ip) as doing the rename, but it appears Justmeherenow did it (though his/her jumping the gun without consensus in the middle of an AFD is not the best way to handle it, but I do think it is an improvement). I also didn't initially catch your recent addition of the source describing "internet homicide".  That's the necessary element here to avoid synthesis.  I can support the rename since the addition of sources for "internet homicide" resolves the issue and merits a keep, though the article still contains some original research that will need cleanup. Thanks for your helpful work on this. -- M P er el  19:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Redirect or disambig or see also Craigslist killer to it.  There may be a better title for the article, some stuff to add and subtract from the article, but this can be done through editing and the talk page if people would make proper use of it.  It is definitely a recurring, recognizable, recognized thing in fiction and reality. Шизомби (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please NOTE that the title of the "Internet killer" article was changed by to "Internet homicide" by  ↜Just me, here, now … 18:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC).
 * And it is still 100% bogus. No such definition exists and the source is being misused to claim a definition exist when it actually doesn't say that.  Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: This entire article was invented by Catherineyronwode/64.142.90.33. There is no single reliable source that actually covers the subject. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * Viriditas said, "This entire article was invented by Catherineyronwode[...]."
 * Well, yes, it's true that Catherineyronwode suggested the title and started its page. Absolutely. But, the real question is...How do we determine if a topic is encyclopedic? And the answer we would have to give to that is, Well, what is encyclopedic is supported by reliable sources. But what does that mean, practically speaking?
 * Say we're compiling a list? Which list can be determined to have relied on reliable sources? And, well, to answer these questions, we have to examine very carefully the make up, the parameters of the proposed topic. And, sure enough! if a proposed topic must rely on so-called "original research" and/or "novel synthesis" in order for us to sorta guess at which members to add to it...well, it then should be said that that topic has been conclusively determined to be un-encyclopedic. But, be that as it may, for considerations of OR or SYNTH to present a bar to some topic's or list's inclusion in Wikipedia, this OR or SYNTH must be organically inherent within the make up of the topic/list itself:
 * Say we're compiling a list? Which list can be determined to have relied on reliable sources? And, well, to answer these questions, we have to examine very carefully the make up, the parameters of the proposed topic. And, sure enough! if a proposed topic must rely on so-called "original research" and/or "novel synthesis" in order for us to sorta guess at which members to add to it...well, it then should be said that that topic has been conclusively determined to be un-encyclopedic. But, be that as it may, for considerations of OR or SYNTH to present a bar to some topic's or list's inclusion in Wikipedia, this OR or SYNTH must be organically inherent within the make up of the topic/list itself:


 * 1) Eg (BAD): Say an editor started a page called "List of offensive rappers" -- but...without the editor's specifying "offensive to who"! In any such case, absolutely the only way any Wiki-contributors could figure out which otherwise-notable rappers to include in the list would be for them to engage in unsupported POV-mongering.
 * 2) Or eg (GOOD): Say the page the editor started instead was titled "List of gangsta rappers." This would be OK because Wiki-contributors could then use reliable sources to figure out which notable rappers have been associated with the qualifier "gansta."
 * So then let's now go to our question at hand, shall we? That is, whether "Internet homicide" is/is not an inherently encyclopedic topic. So then how should we go about determining this? Well, the answer to that question requires the asking of an underlying, "controlling" question -- a 64 thousand dollar question, we could say -- which is, Can Wiki-contributors figure out if any one particular, notable homicide cuold reasonably be qualified by the word Internet in order for it to be added to the list, without our Wiki-contributors NECESSARILY having to indulge in unsupported conjecture? I/e are there reliable sources out there pointing the way so that any random group of Wiki-contributors who would rely on them would end up contribute the exact same members to the list? And IMO I think the obvious answer in this present case would be yes.  ↜Just me, here, now … 01:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That straw man argument is irrelevant. "No original research"  is a core content policy.  It is non-negotiable on AfD.  Whether "Internet killer" or whatver you choose to call it, is or is not encyclopedic is an argument that has never been made in this discussion.  You bring it up to distract away from the actual discussion, the same as you did with the page moves.  These types of gambits are old and tired.  Unless you can point to a single reliable source that supports the topic, including its so-called "definition" and major points, then you must admit by default that this article is OR.  The sources in the current article are being misused to promote this article.  I have made queries to the primary editor on the talk page, asking for page numbers and brief quotes or passages supporting the material.  To date, the editor has been unable to do this.  This is a personal essay written by an editor who is using Wikipedia as their private publishing house.  We simply do not do that here. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What you call a straw man I call an elegant description of the projects' actual EDP -- the "/e/ncycopedic-ness(/unencyclopedic-ness) /d/etermination /p/rocess" -- which is to say, What actually goes on when WPdians determine topics' appropriateness for inclusion. Plain and simple. It's elegant cos applying this process to currently actually existing WP articles -- as though these articles were being proposed and their inclusion/exclusion from the project were to be determined by whether they pass the Test presented by This Process -- would produce a result that reflects what topics are really and truly included in the encyclopedia In Reality.
 * OK here goes. According to your conception of the process, would the list-article "Family of Barack Obama" and the list-articlesection "Homelessness" be in the encyclopedia? Let's see. According to your conception of inclusion criteria neither article passes muster as there are exactly zero! sources! that! say! "the Obama clan is an established topic of study blah blah" or "different ways of saying 'homeless' is an established linguistic study discipline." Nada. None. However, let's apply the EDP. And when we do we find that, sure enough, both of these lists pass muster. Why? Cos (1) the Obamas as a group are notable, and (2) cos any random grouping of WDdians will add the very same members of the Obama family to the list, given the reliable sources (without their having in any way to resort to engaging in OR/SYNTH/POV-mongering/&c). And ditto for the list of linguistic expressions meaning "ppl who are homeless" ((1) each of which is notable as an expression used in a particular context and place for the notable condition of note of homelessness; and (2) which don't require WPdians to conduct original research, the results of which would produce varying results. IOW each WDdian would come up with the same term, given the context and place and the reliable sources.)  ↜Just me, here, now …  02:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with basic deletion guidelines, such as AFD and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. You haven't addressed my request for reliable sources, and the straw man argument you are making, WP:UNENCYC, is automatically invalid.  The fact of the matter is, the primary contributor User:64.142.90.33 (cat yronwode) has already admitted merging List of Craigslist killers into Internet killer, in effect defeating the purpose of Articles for deletion/List of Craigslist killers (see this diff for her admission).  This is another gambit, continually moving the article under deletion into a new article and changing the name every 24 hours to confuse people.  It's the same content as List of Craigslist killers, and experienced Wikipedians have made good arguments on that AfD showing that this content is simply original research.  Please stop pretending that we are dealing with a different article.  It's the same song and dance. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK here goes. According to your conception of the process, would the list-article "Family of Barack Obama" and the list-articlesection "Homelessness" be in the encyclopedia? Let's see. According to your conception of inclusion criteria neither article passes muster as there are exactly zero! sources! that! say! "the Obama clan is an established topic of study blah blah" or "different ways of saying 'homeless' is an established linguistic study discipline." Nada. None. However, let's apply the EDP. And when we do we find that, sure enough, both of these lists pass muster. Why? Cos (1) the Obamas as a group are notable, and (2) cos any random grouping of WDdians will add the very same members of the Obama family to the list, given the reliable sources (without their having in any way to resort to engaging in OR/SYNTH/POV-mongering/&c). And ditto for the list of linguistic expressions meaning "ppl who are homeless" ((1) each of which is notable as an expression used in a particular context and place for the notable condition of note of homelessness; and (2) which don't require WPdians to conduct original research, the results of which would produce varying results. IOW each WDdian would come up with the same term, given the context and place and the reliable sources.)  ↜Just me, here, now …  02:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with basic deletion guidelines, such as AFD and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. You haven't addressed my request for reliable sources, and the straw man argument you are making, WP:UNENCYC, is automatically invalid.  The fact of the matter is, the primary contributor User:64.142.90.33 (cat yronwode) has already admitted merging List of Craigslist killers into Internet killer, in effect defeating the purpose of Articles for deletion/List of Craigslist killers (see this diff for her admission).  This is another gambit, continually moving the article under deletion into a new article and changing the name every 24 hours to confuse people.  It's the same content as List of Craigslist killers, and experienced Wikipedians have made good arguments on that AfD showing that this content is simply original research.  Please stop pretending that we are dealing with a different article.  It's the same song and dance. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * delete or maybe listify. this article contains 2 things which are potentially worthy of notice:
 * a popular speculative assertion that the internet would be good hunting grounds for serial killers (an assertion, incidentally, which is highly doubtful, and has no reliable research behind it)
 * a list of crimes in which the internet was (in some way or another) used.
 * The first is interesting as a popular culture phenomenon, along the lines of sasquatch and having someone knock you out and steal your kidney, but it's being presented here with an obvious attempt to elevate it to factuality. the second is semi-specious: there have been untold numbers of cases in which people where lured to their deaths by phone calls, but wikipedia doesn't have a page on 'telephone homicide'.  otherwise the page is gibberish.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * keep per above--Sugarcubez (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

keep I found this article interesting, and did not think the information was as fully covered in other articles. This is a serious issue and should have attention in its own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.159.2 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — 71.164.159.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's Prohibition-era Smallville and we're assigned to write about the last ten years of there being electricity. We make a draft that could best be headlined in screaming caps, "Five Electrocuted Since Electricity Brought to Smallville." A wise editor takes us over to a cabinet and pulls out clippings: So-and-so kicked in the head by a horse last week; so-and-so smothered in a coal chute. "Tone it down," he says. Fast forward a century. A librarian is writing up Smallville's history. "Each death from electrocution was covered in intricate detail in The Smallville Times especially during that first decade after power lines from the Edison Electric Company were strung to the town," she writes. My moral? (And I do have one, as Ellen Degeneres would say.) The topic of their town's electrification isn't too obscure for Smallvilleians but should be approached from a perspective that's as informed and elevated as possible; likewise the subject of Internet-related homicide isn't too obscure, it just needs to be treated with intellectual respect.  ↜Just me, here, now … 22:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment2: I have to say, I find the name itself to be an irritating misnomer.  can we change that please?  the internet never killed anyone, and the internet was not an integral or necessary mediator in the act of killing anyone.  it's simply a way of locating people.  the only thing 'internet killer' or 'internet homicide' does is make an erroneous distinction between these serial killers and other serial killers, and play into already-rampant urban legends about evil people that lurk on the net.  it's a pure neologism, and wikipedia is not in the business of promoting neologisms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 April 2009
 * Note: I've started a thread WRT the article's name here: Talk:Internet homicide.  ↜Just me, here, now … 05:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep:The article has been renamed to Internet Homicide, which is better than Internet Killer. There are plenty of sources given and the page forms part of a series with Internet Crime, Internet Suicide, and Online Predator. 71.170.204.214 (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — 71.170.204.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * DeletePer Ludwigs and the nominators rationals made here. I just read the article and agree with both of their comments. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)  As an uninvolved editor in all of the articles now listed for AFD I want to add to my reasons for deletion.  First, now in the lead there is a wikilink, Journalese, which to me explains why, in part, the article should be deleted.  This article seems to be scraps taken from other articles and the article seems to try to make it an article to help journalist usify this/these terms.  The article is also miss using core policies such as WP:Syn, WP:OR and possibly WP:COI.  My reasoning for confict of interest is that it is my understanding that the editor writing this article is a journalist.  From reading the other AFD's, there are enough articles already to make this one moot to boot.  (sorry couldn't help myself.)  And one final point is that an editor states, I believe it was Ludwig, my apologies if I am wrong, that the title is stating that the internet kills.  I also agree with what this editor states about this.  Thank you for listening, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - At this point, I simply cannot see how this isn't somewhere in the neighborhood of synthesis. Perhaps "Internet homicide" may become more of an accepted term in the vernacular, but I don't see it now. There is nothing that I see that distinguishes this in any way from the myriad of ways that killers find victims. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: You may not see what "distinguishes this in any way from the myriad of ways that killers find victims" but the news media and book authors certainly do. Also. it is not uncommon at Wikipedia for editors to create -- and accept the creation of -- articles titled as cime-by-contact-venue when old crimes are historically identified by contact-venue (e.g. Piracy) or when old crimes acquire new contact venues: Piracy, Skyjacking, Carjacking, Computer crime, Cyberstalking, Internet crime, Internet suicide, Cyberterrorism, Internet fraud, Vehicular homicide -- which would argue for the use of Internet homicide, although the term is rarer at google than Internet killer. However, even when the contact-venue is notable, there is inconsistency at Wikipedia; for instance, note that Highway robbery redirects to Robbery, but Cyberstalking does NOT redirect to Stalking, which is a separate article. I have described this phenomenon more fully, with further examples, on the article's talkpage, in the section titled "Name"  . Cordially, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Internet homicide - which appears to be the best place to put all of this notable material. While Afd is not the place to discuss mergers, in this case it seems to  be working out O.K. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ludwigs and synthesis problems. And especially per Crohnie. Verbal   chat  08:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ludwigs2 and Crohnie. 03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - yet another in a long string of articles that's cooked up out of thin air with some random term and using original research to throw a laundry list of items together under that term. Waiting for articles on Telephone homicide, FAX homicide, iPhone killer and Actually talked to someone in person and then killed them. I mean, come on, good grief, people. DreamGuy (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether the topic is based on a random term or not can't be based substantially on the titles of existing WP articles. ("The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist[...]."--- WP:OTHERSTUFF )
 * Man Bites Dog. Most murders are among those well acquainted,* with a few among strangers or else people recently acquainted -- and I suppose it is out of this last group, mostly, where the public takes particular note these days of murders among Internet friends. (*Note also: "List of women who have murdered their husbands.")  ↜Just me, here, now … 18:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mistakenly think what you say has any relevance to this AFD (your arguments aren't even trying to follow Wikipedia notability standards), or do you just have the pathological need to respond to what everyone else says? Just curious. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Justmeherenow's first observation about your post is correct. You're making what appears to be a slippery slope argument.  Your description of the article is hyperbolic; it is not "cooked up out of thin air," a "random term" or a "laundry list."  There's no reason to believe articles you mention will be created.  Good grief, indeed.  And recall Etiquette; I'm not always good at it myself. Шизомби (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think probably the pathology.  ↜Just me, here, now … 23:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic of people killing people they met on the Internet is notable, whatever you precisely call it ("cyberkilling", "internet murder", "internet killer", "internet murderer", "online killer", "online murderer", "internet homicide", "cyber killer" etc.). It's not a random list, it is well-defined. And there are plenty of sources: This source discusses the concept in detail:. The author is critical of the concept, but the very fact that he's discussing it in a book adds to the notability; 'Internet killer' admits murdering women he met in online chat rooms; Life for internet killer; Jury Recommends Sentence For Internet Killer; Internet killer gets life term for 'vicious crimes'; "Er soll der unheimliche Internet-Killer sein, der mindestens zwei Frauen getötet hat" (also a phrase in German; Love link to 'cyber row killer'; Used in fiction in the show "Homicide" in 1999; Woman 'confesses to internet murder';Help To Halt Online Predators. Internet Murder: Tips Every Parent Should Know sounds like a how to guide ; [http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/118/118226_internet_murder_boys_told_never_see_each_other_again.html Internet 'murder' boys told: Never see each other again; Internet murderer 'saw the eyes of Jesus'; First Internet murder; there's even bad fiction about the topic:. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fences and windows (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Internet homicide would be the better title if we were to have an article on this nebulous and ill-defined concept, but I expect that the encyclopedia is better served when we restrict ourselves to topics rigorously identified by reliable sources. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 06:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. What about all the reliable sources cited by the article and linked to in my comment above? What about the fact that journalists have repeatedly labelled people as "internet killer"? It's not a neologism - it is now in common use, as attested to by an abundance of sources. Fences and windows (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge the Craiglist pages into this article as a way of reducing the disregard of NPOV in the latter pages. I'd rather rob NOR to pay NPOV, rather than the other way around. Sceptre (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2009 (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.