Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror movie serial killers


 * 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. No agreement on whether it can be objectively determined if a character in a "horror movie" is a "serial killer." King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

List of horror movie serial killers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Page is basically just a listing of characters, which means it acts like a category. Whatdoyaknow, but there is a category for these characters at Category:Fictional serial killers and Category:Fictional mass murderers. Should be deleted based on the fact that it is redundant to those categories, isn't designed to really contain any prose (e.g., it's usage isn't to promote how serial killers are portrayed in fiction, etc.), and in the least should be "horror film" and not "movie". Given that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and these characters have no commonality beyond being "serial killers" (I'll also point out that there is no defined criteria as to why these characters fit that characterization) in the horror media.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be deleted based on the fact that it is redundant to those categories No, per WP:CLN. Also, categories can't house redlinks. Keep Clear inclusion criteria which could easily be expanded into a table with more info.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What more info? The page isn't designed to be anything other than a list. If the character isn't notable enough to have its own page, why would it matter if it isn't mentioned in a category list?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —  Chris! c / t 19:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:CLN, categories and lists perform two different, although related functions. As User:Lugnuts points out, categories do not house redlinks.... but in a list, a redlink can encourage the creation of a new content. And as the criteria for inclusion are clearly defined, the list is not indescriminate.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't defined criteria, because you have to determine which character is considered a "serial killer". Unless you have a source saying so (and none of this page do), then we cannot categorize them ourselves. Just one random example, what makes Ashton "Ashe" Corven (Crow: City of Angels) a serial killer? If I recall in that film, he's more of an avenging spirit than a serial killer, and the fact that he kills everyone without a day suggests he's more of a mass murderer than a serial killer anyway. So again, this page has no defined criteria for inclusion, it's just a couple of editos who have added any fictional character that kills more than 2 people in a given film to the list. Here's just two more examples from this page: Cujo and Christine. Exactly when did a rabid dog and a possessed car become "serial killers"? As for the redlink issue. Again, the assumption is that they are notable enough to have their own article to begin with. As far as fictional characters go, most automatically get articles because fans are article creating happy. Redlink issue is not a real issue, because the next assumption is that readers are coming to this page before they are going to the film pages that the characters originate from.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The list has defined criteria for inclusion and is not indescriminate. Serial Killer is a specifically defined term. Horror movie is a specifically defined term.  It takes no OR to see that if someone is a serial killer in a horror film then he or she might merit inclusion on this list.  Arguments attempting to re-define what makes a serial killer or what constitutes a horror film are best left to the talk pages of those various articles.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you're missing the point. Unless a film clearly says "this character is a serial killer", we cannot try and match up the criteria of what appears on a Wikipedia page to what appears in a film (or series of films). Again, explain how Cujo, Christine, The Crow, and countless others on that list are "serial killers", even based on the so-called criteria that is defined by Wikipedia. The only thing linking any of these characters is the apparent fact that they may or may not be serial killers in some horror film. If you're only argument is that categories cannot house redlinks, then you really haven't put forth an argument as to why this page needs to even exist in the first place. It holds no actual informational value. It's clearly subjective in nature given that there are no sources actually confirming the status of "serial killer" to any of the characters on this page. The page itself isn't set up (by title or format) to accept prose discussion on serial killers in fiction (which would make this an entirely different article altogether if it were). Lists are not to be used to simply house redlinks with the hope that someone creates an article for them. The parent articles for these characters can and should handle such a job.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You voice repeated concerns here that you do not agree with some of the "names" that others have placed on that list... fine... but THAT concern belongs on the list's talk page in discussion with whomever added them, where you and they address their perhaps misunderstanding of the defining terms serial killer and horror film. And the film itself need not be the only identifier of a character as a serial killer. If a reliable source specifically refers to a character in a horror film as a serial killer, then that character might then be considered for inclusion.  Another's misunderstanding does not somehow equate with the entire list requiring deletion... however, it does equate with cleanup and discussion.  And while I would tend to agree that a car (Christine) and a dog (Cujo) do not seem to fit fit the inclusion criteria for serial killer, someone else's misunderstanding does not invalidate the defined inclusion criteria...  and the list itself needing some cleanup does not invalidate the list... just as your concerns with how the page itself is set up is yet another reason to have discussions on the article's talk page.  Neither is a reason to delete the list.  My "argument" is that it is a valid list with defined inclusion criteria, and that someone's misunderstanding the inclusion criteria is a reason to begin discussions with any who adds a name incorrectly.  And it was only a sub-point that redlinks (allowed in lists and not in categories) encourage new articles... so no need to dwell on that as if it were the "only" reson for my oppose of a deletion of a properly defined list.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's as simple as this. The names I mention are just clearly not supposed to be on this list. The rest, I have no idea about (I don't know half of them) because they don't have a single source in the article that verifies they are considered a fictional "serial killer". Nothing. As such, this page clearly does not assert any notability. Notice how WP:NOTE clearly says that the only way this does not apply to stand-alone lists is when all of the subjects have their own article. That is not the case here (even most of the characters on this list just redirect to the film articles), as if it were we could simply use the categories that cover them all already and your argument about redlinks wouldn't apply. And I quote: "By definition, the content of such a list will be limited to notable subjects." - Given that most of the characters here don't have their own page (or have pages that don't meet WP:NOTE itself, then clearly the necessary existence of this page is in question. Especially when no sources providing that any of these characters are considered "serial killers" are present in the article itself. (BTW) I started adjusting the links so it's clear which character has an article and which is just going to its film, I've only gotten through the letter "D" and already almost all (minus about 5) do not have an article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - a rational list of notably irrational people. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: We do not need lists of non-notable info--that's a clear and direct violation of WP:NOT. Are we going to start making a list of "Movie characters who are lawyers," "Movie characters who are children", and "Movie characters who are humans"?  We do not list indiscriminate info.  As a side note to the above discussion, if the list is kept, the next step will be to go through and remove every single entry without a reliable source identifying the person character as a serial killer, per WP:OR.  Note that the definition of a serial killer, as per Serial killer is quite complex, applying the label to any given character without a source is definitely OR.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I am normally pretty lenient of my reading of existance criteria with regards to Wikipedia list articles, but I think that this one goes too far into the indiscriminate and coincidental cross-categorization problems. Such a large number of horror movie characters are serial killers that this list is nothing more than "List of main bad guys in horror movies", and is  mostly coincident with "List of horror movies".  Even in my very forgiving heart, I can't find a place at Wikipedia for this nearly pointless list.  -- Jayron  32  00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bignole, per WP:CLN, the existence of a category does not mean a list cannot be made. They are two different ways to navigate articles, so additional prose is not a factor. Is there not a way to redefine the criteria of this list? What about List of horror film antagonists and limiting the list of names to only blue links (where the antagonists are notable enough to have their own article)? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What if the list were refactored to focus on the films rather than the characters, like List of films about serial killers? The list could be made into a searchable table with character names in one column.  I think the genre could be dropped because serial killers aren't limited to horror films, and this list hasn't been so limited in practice anyway.  postdlf (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For either of these two suggestions it would really just mean deleting this page and doing something else. To Erik, I didn't say that because there are categories a list cannot exist, I merely said that this page is redundant to those particular categories especially when you fact in that this page only has a handful of actual film serial killers. For "list of films about serial killers", I think the list would be extremely short. This page gives the impression that there are countless fictional serial killers in films. There aren't...at least not notable ones. The majority of the characters on this page are not serial killers in the least, they are merely here because someone saw that they killed at least 2 people in a film (which in no way fits the criteria at least established by the serial killer page on Wikipedia).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep lists and categories are not redundant to each other. if there is a category for material that cvan be also covered in a list it should be, for Wikipedia  consistently uses both systems of organization. I may not fully understand why some people prefer categories, but I do not try to remove them on he basis of being redundant to lists.   A list can & should give such basic information for browsing as the name of the film and the date, as well as just the bare name of the character. Significant characters in notable films is never indiscriminate, if Wikipedia notability of the film is a criterion. The term keeps being used, and it seems a possibly deliberate misunderstanding of what the words mean. The fact of notability  is the evidence of not being indiscriminate, since Wikipedia inclusion is not indiscriminate.  I am not altogether happy with the limitation to horror movies--I would strongly prefer expansion into list of fictional serial killers (or, if that is too large, list of fictional killers in films, meaning lists of serial killers in notable films.    DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The list doesn't limit to horror movies as the title suggests. There are many characters listed whose films were not horror in nature. That said, I went though a quarter of the list and only 5 characters are even notable.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the subject of horror movie serial killers is notable enough for this list to exist, although I'd definitely suggest adding more prose and firming up the criteria for inclusion. –Grondemar 02:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Firming it up to what? Right now, about 10 to 15 characters actually meet the definition as listed at serial killer, and of those about 5 are notable enough to warrant an article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:49, 24 September 2010 (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.