Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rampage 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   snow keep all. Discussion of problems with individual entries can continue, if necessary, on talk pages of the relevant list, but there is clear consensus that deletion of all the lists is not the answer here. BencherliteTalk 21:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

List of rampage killers



 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

When I started a discussion about these lists of "rampage killers" on Jimbo's talk page, several (if not all) of the lists contained entries for "rampage killers" who had not actually killed anyone. In some cases these were living people, in other cases the non-killing killers were already dead. The lists also contain entries for people who had been arrested for the crimes, but not found guilty. Both of these are obvious and direct violations of our policy on biographies of living people. In almost every entry in these lists, the perpetrators of these killings are not notable outside of these events.

Note that WP currently has no article called Rampage killer. These lists are the product of years of original research by a small number of editors. The main editor of these lists, User:Lord Gøn, has serious ownership issues. Their comments make it clear that they do not understand our policies about living people.

WP is not "the sum of human knowledge". There is much that is excluded by our notability guideline and our policies about living people. I nominate these lists for deletion on the basis of editorial discretion. WP does not need these lists. So long as they exist, they are magnets for policy violations and other issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic seems notable per WP:LISTN as there are numerous sources about it such as the International Handbook of Violence Research; Rampage: Canadian Mass Murder and Spree Killing; The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers and many more. We even have two entries from these lists on our main page currently — Nidal Malik Hasan and Robert Bales.  Jack the Ripper is also on the main page though I suppose he's a serial killer, rather than a rampager.  We have several lists of serial killers such as List of serial killers by country and we have numerous other lists of criminals.  BLP is not a reason to delete the whole of these lists because many entries are historical and/or the killers were killed, executed or committed suicide.  Problems with particular entries are a reason to edit those entries not to delete the whole thing indicriminately.  That's our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with lists of people like this is that someone always pulls out that some platitude like "Problems with particular entries are a reason to edit those entries not to delete the whole thing" as if fixing the current problems will have any impact on the damage already done to people's reputations and Google results. Fixing the existing issues will not prevent them from recurring. It does not address the reasons why the lists ended up with entries that violated BLP or make sure that the editors responsible will not repeat the same errors. Everything you say in defence of this article could be applied to List of gay bathhouse regulars. Occasionally we have to make editorial decisions to lose some things for the betterment of the project. This is one of those occasions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - a pretty plainly notable and encyclopaedic topic for lists in my book. (We may not have an article entitled rampage killer, but we do have spree killer, going postal, running amok, active shooter, and more.) Sure, there are potential BLP problems with these lists, but that could be said of many other lists and articles related to criminal acts; I don't think these ones are especially problematic. Indeed, in most cases rampage killings are so notorious that adequate reliable sources should be available. The fact that they may be difficult to maintain is not in itself a reason for deletion.


 * My biggest worry about these 'all-time top killers' lists, personally speaking, is that they might somehow encourage certain readers to try to top the list themselves... but that's probably a pretty low risk. In any case, the information would still exist out there, whether or not we had an article on it, so we'd hardly be protecting anyone by taking it down. Robofish (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic is notable, and the fact that it has problems is not a reason to delete. If we deleted every article that has problems we would end up with just 42 articles on wikipedia.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, noteworthy and encyclopedic. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, the term "rampage killer" seems well enough established, and most such incidents do gain significant numbers of reliable sources. If the articles have problems, go edit them, that's not a valid deletion rationale. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well-established where? Not at Rampage killer. There is this unsourced mention in Spree killer: "Another term, rampage killer, has sometimes been used to describe spree killers, but it does not differentiate between mass murderers and spree killers". That hardly seems well-established to me. It seems more like original research and synthesis. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ,, and show up with just a very cursory search. We don't have to have an article on a term in order to use it. It's clear reliable sources do use this term. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. WP:POINTy, borderline bad-faith nomination. "Editorial discretion" is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  The list concept is clearly notable, and AFD is not a replacement for cleanup, content you personally don't like or to strike back at other editors. Resolute 02:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but with reservations. While it's true we don't have an article "rampage killer", we have other articles for terms that are at least arguably synonyms.  At any rate, that just means the article should be renamed, not deleted.
 * I also don't buy the argument that we shouldn't have people who aren't convicted. This isn't "list of rampage murderers", but "list of rampage killers".  If a court finds that someone did indeed kill but they are not legally liable, they should appear in a list of killers.  And since the court itself has decided that they killed but that they did not commit a crime, we can likewise call them a killer without implying that they committed a crime.
 * I do agree that the articles need to be purged of people who have no victims. That doesn't mean deletion, however. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * By "not convicted" I did not mean found responsible with mitigating circumstances, I meant that there was no indication that there had been anything other than an arrest. That is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME and I expect that it will happen as long as these lists exist. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Point of information: the tables were all purged of people who have no victims before this AFD was filed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, nor did you read any of the given sources in the list, otherwise you would not say that "there was no indication that there had been anything other than an arrest". Let's take a famous example, one that is comparable to pretty much all the other cases where the perpetrators have been arrested, Anders Behring Breivik, who has been caught at the crime scene with a gun in hand, readily admitted to the bombing and shooting, sent a 1500 page manifesto around the world, even has been filmed by a helicopter shooting those kids on the island, so to say there was "no indication" for anything but an arrest defies any common sense. To not name him as the perpetrator, convicted or not, would be an insult to any reasonably thinking person, and the edit wars that were going on after the arrests of both Jared Lee Loughner and James Eagan Holmes, where the circumstances were similar, prove that a lot of people are thinking the same way. Rampage killings are almost never an instance of "Who Dunnit?", and if there are reliable sources reporting a rampage killing, blatantly stating "and that's the guy who did it" then we on Wikipedia are obliged to belive that. We can't just twist it around and say he's the "alleged" perpetrator when that is not covered by the sources.
 * But anyway, even if we disagree on naming the "suspects", what you cannot deny is that in case a rampage killing is reported, it should be included in the list. So there is certainly no question of deleting entire cases, which has been done in a rash of action against supposedly gross violation of BLP, but merely of deleting the perpetrators' names. But going by your suggestion there would be a great amount of cases where we claim the perpetrator is unknown, while all the world around us is discussing not who did it, but why he did it. Any person not familiar with Wikipedia policies would be left dumbfounded by the absence of the perpetrators name, even years, maybe decades after the crime, if he is found unfit to stand trial, and then question our sanity and the reliability of Wikipedia in general.
 * Finally, I find it to be quite a disregard of Wikipedia's community to complain at Jimbo's talk-page when you find something you don't like, or disagree with, without even leaving a note at the talk page of the relevant article, or its editors. I am always trying to explain why I do things the way I do, and I am open for any discussion and helpful suggestions, so it is an insinuation to claim I have ownership issues and don't understand BLP. I do understnd it very well, and more than once have I seen people misinterpreting it, turning the intention behind it into an outright absurdity, or clearly violating its spirit, so it may suit their cause, and as I see it this is one such instance. That said, your behaviour is beyond me. Hell, I don't even know what it is supposd to achieve to run to Jimbo, since everything here is based on consensus and not the opinion of its founder. You say there are many articles here on Wikipedia that "glorify" serial and mass killers, so why do you not address any NPOV issues by actually editing those articles, or simply adding a POV-template, instead of wasting your time with complaining to Jimmy Wales who rarely seems to answer. But then, by what you say it is apparent that you don't like to have any articles on the subject at all, probably because you find them to be offensive, asking for "editorial discretion" and all. As you said: "my issue is with the lists themselves" and "I think we can live without these lists." So, if we can live without these lists, then why are there dozens of books and hundreds of scientific articles on the subject? Why are newspapers frequently printing their own lists of rampage killers of the past? Why did this list have over 250,000 page views in the month after the Sandy Hook shooting? To me it looks like you are on a crusade, because you have found something you don't like. A five minute google search would've been enough to prove that the subject is notable, nonetheless, you preferred to start an AFD. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Yep, User:Delicious carbuncle, of all the things Lord Gøn has said, "I find it to be quite a disregard of Wikipedia's community to complain at Jimbo's talk-page when you find something you don't like, or disagree with, without even leaving a note at the talk page of the relevant article, or its editors" is by far the most important. Why you felt a compulsion to go running to Jimbo to discuss a purely editorial issue is beyond me.  I guess we'll all need to be wary of your modus operandi in future, no clues, just snitches to Jimbo, followed by pointy AFDs, despite your "issues" being resolved beforehand.  Also, in the nomination, Delicious carbuncle claims "serious ownership issues" from Lord Gon.  I completely refute that accusation as I've made many serious edits to all these pages and Lord Gøn and I have had a reasonably amiable discussion on my talkpage about why.  There's been no indication of ownership, just genuine discussion.  Not sure what Delicious carbuncle's beef is here.  But it sure smells odd.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lord Gøn, you still don't seem t grasp that adding people to those lists as killers, if they only been arrested but not yet found responsible, is a direct violation WP:BLP. Do you not understand this? This is precisely why I am asking for these lists to be deleted. They will attract these kinds of BLP violations. As for my thread on Jimbo's talk page, I don't see what you have to complain about, since I started this deletion discussion, as suggested there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A plainly ridiculous perspective. Of course all entries should be referenced, but any article can become subject to BLP.  At any time.  If you see BLP violations in any article you should act directly to solve it, not go running to Jimbo to complain, and then spend hours waiting to create an AFD to whinge about it. Keep on digging.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Although you don't agree with deleting these lists, I am sure that as an experienced admin you agree that people who have been arrested but not yet tried should not be on these lists. Is that correct? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lists should have clear inclusion criteria and be fully referenced. If you have found entries that are not referenced, tag them or if they are BLP violations, remove them.  No need to destroy dozens of reasonably referenced entries just because you object to a couple. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You know that isn't what I asked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wish to continue to assume bad faith, don't expect too much sympathy when this is held up as a demonstration of how not to make a point. If you feel there are violations of BLP (and for the fourth/fifth (?) time of asking), do something about it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are asking to delete a perfectly valid article whose subject is beyond doubt notable, just because you are of the opinion that it violates BLP in some parts. How that is supposed to be a reasonable response I don't know. Also, I have made my case why I think the BLP violations are unfounded, or at least dubious. A reiteration that we have here an obvious and direct violation of BLP is not doing a lot to clarify the situation. Not for me, at least. You didn't even bother to participate much in the discussion over at Talk:List of rampage killers (Americas) that somebody else has started in response to your complaints at Jimbo's talk-page. A simple referral to a Wikipedia policy is not really explaining how you come to your conclusions. And if you don't understand all by yourself that running straight to daddy Jimbo without informing the editors involved, or at least leaving a note at the article's talk page that there may be a problem, comes across as somewhat alienating and insensitive, then any further words on that matter would be a waste of bytes. Or what would you think, if you'd create an article, putting a lot of work and time into it, and then someone else starts scheming behind your back to get it deleted? Ain't that rude? I say it is. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Well, no, I am not saying that the general subject of mass murderers is not notable. What I am saying is that WP does not need to have lists of mass-murderers which can be sorted by number of victims. Just like we chose not to have List of gay bathhouse regulars, we can choose not to have these lists, and for the same reason - they will attract BLP violations. Regarding your failure to understand our BLP policy, I'm not sure how the policy could be any clearer on this point - have you read it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * IAR, have you read it? All policies are subject to common sense.  Every single one.
 * Refusing to list someone in the list because he was incompetent to stand trial, and therefore no conviction happened, even though he was caught red-handed killing people in a very public and directly obvious manner, defies common sense. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ken, I guess you missed my clarification above. That is not the situation under discussion (although that one does occur). Individuals were listed who had been reported as arrested, but about whom there no further reports. We do not know if those individuals were found to have committed the crimes or completely exonerated. Do you understand now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A List of gay bathhouse regulars would obviously fail WP:N, so we choose not to have a list like that for notability reasons, not because of BLP concerns. Would the subject be considered notable by the world outside of Wikipedia, including scientific studies and all that, we could not reject the creation of a list like that. Of course every entry would have to be sourced, but reliably sourced additions could not be removed, neither because of WP:SHIT, nor WP:BLP.
 * Yes, the list of rampage killers does include cases where it is not known if the perpetrators were convicted, but it is unreasonable to expect that we will be informed about every conviction about every rampage killer. China, e.g. has a tendency to sentence and execute such people in absolute secrecy, so we will always have a lot of cases of rampage killings where we will never know what happened to the culprit. Your argument about not knowing if those individuals were convicted works both ways btw, because you could as well say, we do not know that they were acquitted either. Sure, you are not guilty before the law, unless convicted by a court, but that doesn't mean we must not add any information about a possible crime in a biography until a conviction is secured. If we'd do that a lot of relevant information could never be presented. Take Raymond Allen Davis e.g., the guy killed two people, but he was protected by diplomatic immunity and therefore could not be prosecuted. By your reasoning we could never say that he shot those men, even though there's a wealth of sources that proves just that. No, what we have to do is stick to the sources, and if they report that somebody has killed someone, we can not assume that it may not have been so, because that would violate WP:OR.
 * About "not needing" the list: So you think that the New York Times, Mother Jones, and many other newspapers are catering to nobody with their tables? You think that Grant Duwe has wasted his time creating his own list for the scientific study of mass murders? You want to say that the Encyclopedia of mass murder was published with the expectation that no one's gonna be interested? That those 45,000 people visiting the page the day after the Sandy Hook shooting have come to the list of rampage killers, because they've clicked the wrong link?
 * I tell you, the world was in severe need of this list, because before it existed a lot of misconceptions were floating around in the media and the relevant literature, that such incidents are only an occurrence of the recent past and that they happen only in western countries with a focus in the United States. This list has proven once and for all that these claims were unfounded. Furthermore, there is no better starting point on the entire internet, or anywhere else, for someone who wants to cunduct a study on rampage killers, because here he can find them listed all in one place, neatly categorized and with a lot of information and sources. Of course scientists are uneasy about using Wikipedia as a source, but the fact that Psychology Today has one crappy article that is completely based on this list, and Flaskerud cites it in "Case studies in amok?" proves that it is read also by those dealing with the subject on a professional basis. At least once Wikipedia is at the forefront of providing scientists with information, and you want to have it removed, because you think "it's not needed". (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Lord Gøn, I understand that you have a deep interest in "rampage killers" and have a great desire to spread that information. You are free to do that elsewhere, but I don't think you should be doing it here. Please read Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars. It wasn't deleted because gay bathhouses are not notable nor because the people in the list were not otherwise notable (they were). It was deleted because it was a "BLP disaster". I think these lists are the same. You continue to insist that you will add people to your lists even if the only information you have is reports that they have been arrested. Let me say it again - this is a violation of WP:BLP. You can't do it. Sorry. Them's the rules. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) Judging by the way this AFD is running, you're on your own in believing what you're writing Delicious carbuncle. (2) If you can see BLP violations, please do something about them, tag them or delete them.  Not to do so would be wilfully negligent.  Them's the facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) That's ok, it's how the AfD system works. (2) Chenggu axe massacre alleges, based on very brief and contradictory press reports, that a named individual killed 9 people. The references report only that he was arrested. This is a BLP violation. Now that you are aware of it, not dealing with it would be wilfully negligent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says Yang Mingxin killed those people, because that is what the sources reported, quote: "Delayed reports from a Chinese weekly said Yang Mingxin, from Chenggu county in Shaaxi province killed nine and injured three others in a fit of rage on June 23" How do you want to twist that around to come to the conclusion that he may not've done it? Saying that he may not have been responsible for the death of these nine people is not covered by any of the available sources. And to say that the sources are contradictiory is an outright lie. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Oh dear, Delicious carbuncle, please.... why would you start to make things up now? The beef smells stranger by the moment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm a bit surprised by your absolute WP:DICK attitude in this AfD, Rambling Man. You seem to be trying to be trying to score points in some private game rather than actaully discussing issues raised. I'm not in the habit of making statements that I can't support, but this isn't the place for it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm completely surprised by your odd crusade. I'm not doing anything other than standing up for a user you seem determined to make feel inadequate.  I've discussed the issues.  You have a BLP bee in your bonnet, but yet feel that you can't actively help other than seek the deletion of several pages.  Embarrassing yourself on the way.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to egt the user follow our BLP policy, not make them feel inadequate. I've opened a discussion on the BLP noticeboard to get more input so that other people can offer their opinions (which may not be the same as mine) and encourage the user to follow policy. I don't feel embarrassed. Maybe I should. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And may you eventually explain why you think that this information should not be present at Wikipedia? Why are you so adamantly against having a list of rampage killers, here, where it is available to a broad audience all around the world? It can't be notability, because that doubtlessly is established, and it can't be BLP either, because a lot of biographies may have, or may get BLP-issues, but nonetheless are kept, because they pass WP:N. Justin Bieber is listed among the most vandalized articles on Wikipedia, but who in his right mind would propose its deletion because of that? So why should I not "spread" that information here on Wikipedia, whose self-described aim is supposed to be to become "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge", and to be "the sum of human knowledge"? Because you don't like it?
 * Regarding your List of gay bathhouse regulars, it seems a lot of issues were raised regarding its general encyclopedic value, its notability and the definition of the word "regular". Of course, since the list has been deleted, I cannot say how, or if notability of the subject and the entries in the list was established, but at least in my opinion a "List of gay bathhouse regulars" is of as much encyclopedic value as a "List of men who had sex with women." Though there may be some value to such a list if there are enough people whose visit to gay bathhouses was deemed notable enough to produce a sufficient amount of reliable sources on the subject. I can't judge that, since I am no expert in that regard, but the list that was once part of the Gay bathhouse-article to me gives the impression of being a collection of inane trivia, was overall badly sourced, and never made clear why it would be important to the subject of gay bathhouses to know that Freddy Mercury frequently visited such establishments in 1979. But I am pretty sure, that if notability of the list could've been clearly established, it would've been kept, BLP-issues, or not. Anyway, there is still a "Notable patrons"-section in the main article, and would it ever happen that this listing would become too long, it would have to be split off into, you guess it, a separate list.
 * You keep repeating that it is a violation of BLP to name the arrested, but repetition doesn't make it true. I ask you to come foreward and make your case. Cite the relevant parts of BLP and tell me how you interpret them, then we can discuss where and why we digress. And btw, Wikipedia has no firm rules, it has policies and guidelines, but as one of the five pillars makes clear:
 * "(...) they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception." (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Read WP:BLP. Ask someone if you have questions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * sofixit Apply BLP, ask someone if you find it difficult to edit articles you believe have BLP violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, you don't want to explain your position. You could've spared me a lot of time by simply saying so. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I thought I had done. I've started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard to get more opinions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And I thought I have made clear that you did not. Repetition is not explanation. Look, I have gone at great lengths, trying to explain how I see things, and where I think your reasoning is faulty, but you don't even have the decency to read what I have to say, let alone addressing it. You are claiming I have BLP issues, but please stop for a second and ask yourself, couldn't it be as well you who has BLP-issues? We're in complete disagreement how to read BLP, so much is obvious. I understand that BLP is an important policy, and it is absolutely necessary to protect people from unsourced claims, especially, if they are presented in connection with something as serious as murder. But if these claims are reliably sourced, we must not withhold that information on dubious grounds of considerateness. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I started that discussion at BLPN so that it wasn't just you and I disagreeing. Please discuss it there, not here. Perhaps other people will share your interpretation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable topic per sources above (also easy to find rampage/spree killings on Gbooks, not hard to find proper inclusion criteria. The article needs lots of eyeballs on it, and possibly cleanup, but AfD is not for cleanup. Thanks to the nominator for first pointing that such articles contained BLP violations, but they aren't BLP violations per se, so deletion is not the right option.-- cyclopia speak! 07:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I had already removed the "zero killers" before this AFD was raised. Suggest that definition of rampage killer is cleared up, but otherwise the lists seem well referenced as a minimum.  Sortable tables are a disgrace but that can be fixed, better that than delete them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, but prune to convicted rampage killers whose bios are well sourced. If necessary, create the (sourced) article List of accused rampage killers as a holding area. -- Auric    talk  18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If sources call them "mass murders" and "spree killers" then they should be on the list. Reliable sources that study them call them by all three names.  Take this PBS educational bit for example:  "Mind of a Rampage Killer  Can science help us understand why some people commit horrific acts of mass murder ?"  Whatever you name the article, it doesn't really matter.  The list is perfectly valid.  If you don't want to include people who haven't had time to go to trial yet, even if caught in the act in front of security cameras, then you can discuss their removal on the relevant talk pages.  That isn't a valid reason to destroy the entire list.   D r e a m Focus  21:26, 3 September 2013 (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.