Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of serial killers by country


 * 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. WP:Snow keep (and yes I voted, but since it was to delete, this isn't a biased close) Scott Mac (Doc) 08:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

List of serial killers by country

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

DELETE. Other than serving as a handy list of WP:BLP articles which should be deleted due to poorly sourced claims, I don't see how this list possibly benefits the community or our readers. JBsupreme ( talk ) 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep This is one of the few lists on Wikipedia I would ever argue to keep. IMO this is information users of Wikipedia would find useful - especially those interested in criminology or psychology. If the articles themselves ae poorly sourced BLPs, they should be treated separately. Addionne (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Scott Mac (below). I didn't realize that Category:Serial killers by nationality existed. Addionne (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete isn't this what Category:Serial killers by nationality does?--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a good argument. From WP:CLS: Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. — Rankiri (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See also: WP:AOAL. — Rankiri (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. Can you explain why, in this instance, the list provides use the category doesn't.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Because they are different. See below. Malick78 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful list. That a category exists is not a reason to take out the list - indeed, the list contains useful summary capsule information that is not easily broken down into the category structure. Ray  Talk 19:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete duplicates category, adds no value, repeatedly hit with blp violations and vandalism. Binary lists like this are a cancer and need to be done away with.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep It's a very useful list for research. Note, it is DIFFERENT from the category: the list is where the murders took place according to the introductory sentence. The category is by the murderer's nationality. Adult editors may notice this. A case could be made for renaming the page though - to List of serial killers by country of murders. Malick78 (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ray. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ray and rename per Malick78. I want to stress that in almost every case deleting a list because there is a similar category is nonsense: lists and categories are complementary, not exclusive. The list in this case gives information the category doesn't already, and can be extended to include more. -- Cycl o pia talk  22:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  23:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  23:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - looking through pointy deletionist googles, the nomination could apply to half the lists about people on Wikipedia, it is poor rationale for deletion. This nomination appears to have been raised to make a point after the nominator read this thread on ANI and made a comment, again a poor reason to raise this article for deletion. Ash (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Cyclopia on this one, in that people seem to be interested in the nationality of a serial killer. I can understand that some people are more comfortable with categories, but I've never understood why some of that group seem to be so intolerant of the existence of a list.  I guess that categories are wonderful if you have the time to click on each entry, one by one, to find out why a person has a particular label on their article.  And I guess that categories are indispensible if you want to alphabetize people by their first name instead of their last name, with Abraham Lincoln coming before George W. Bush.  Categories are  like the card catalog -- they're useful if nothing else is available.  Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly useful and interesting article. You will probably find that the bulk of the articles refer to deceased persons, or unidentified serial killers, or are perfectly well sourced BLPs.  If there are a BLP problems with a handful of articles listed here then they should be dealt with on their merits, removing the article from the list will not remove the problem.  I have seen worse vandalism magnets than this, and some fairly innocuous articles can attract persistent vandalism for unclear reasons e.g. Henry VIII of England. PatGallacher (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but agree on its vulnerability. This is the sort of article that should be indefinitely semi-protected due to vandalism risk. Needs sourcing but that should be straightforward. Do we have a definition of "serial killer"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion does not appear to comply with SILVERLOCK: "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used  solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users." Ash (talk) 08:12, 4 March 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.