Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of serial rapists by number of victims


 * 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. A rename to List of serial rapists seems likely to follow, but I leave article renaming to the normal editorial processes for that. RL0919 (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

List of serial rapists by number of victims

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:LISTN, evidence of list topic notablity has not been demonstrated. Policy requires the topic to have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge selectively to serial rapist. I'm just not seeing the kind of coverage as a group that we should have to spin out a list like this. Even picking a couple of the top names and googling them together finds very little. I see no reason the pertinent information from this couldn't be handled, in part, in the main article. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * .Keep. This has important sociological information for researchers, and per WP:NOTESALThere is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists..Oldperson (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Its a valid list article, far more useful than a category. Having all the articles for serial rapists in one list with information to help sort through them is quite useful for those searching for information.   D r e a m Focus  14:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm a bit on the fence about this one. But if kept, it should simply be renamed to "List of serial rapists"; the "by number of victims" is a red herring here.  It would also need some sourcing on what exactly constitutes a serial rapist (FBI definition, if it exists, etc).  Inclusion criteria needs to be cleared up as well.  There's been one very persistent editor adding unsourced material, much of which has been extremely dubious.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Most rapists are serial rapists. So traumatized by it most females can't report it when it happens, so they just keep getting away with it and raping others.  This is a List of rapists who have their own Wikipedia articles and are only famous/notable for rape and nothing else.   D r e a m Focus  15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is some activity in the deletion log for related pages:
 * Lmatt (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as owner of the article I'm attempting to maintain the list clean, but there's an IP editor adding serial killers that killed their victims after raping them. The list is supposed to include only serial rapists who only raped their victims. About notability, I think it is balanced at this point. Joji Obara had a very well publicized trial in the media, as did Roger Abdelmassih. About the others rapists, I agree with you that they do not have much notability, but I tried my best to include all rapists in the list to make it complete. I was planning to add gang rapists but there are few cases available on Wikipedia. Sorry if my response did not make much sense to the relevant discussion. I'm very bad at explaining things, but I hope this did a bit to understand. Greetings! --Cientific124 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a side comment: please see WP:OWN – no one owns articles, even those who have contributed all or most of the content.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since English is not the person's first language, I think it was just a wording mistake. They have been on Wikipedia for years now so should know that.  On a different note, I did post on the IP address's talk page asking them to not add things that shouldn't be there, it seems to be an honest mistake.   D r e a m Focus  16:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and ! Thanks for the note. I used the "owner of article" claim in a few discussions before, but I did not know that rule. Thanks for advising me! --Cientific124 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you support a move to Draft:List of serial rapists by number of victims until evidence of list topic notablity has been demonstrated, as per WP:DRAFTIFY? Lmatt (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Or a move to User:Cientific124/List of serial rapists by number of victims, per WP:HUD. Lmatt (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support a draft to the list until the evidence of list topic notablity has been demonstrated. Greetings! --Cientific124 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It has to meet the requirements for a list article, not the notability requirements for a regular article. It is a valid grouping that aids in navigation to other articles.   D r e a m Focus  17:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is mistaken: list articles need to adhere to all the article criteria including the notability guidelines. See Stand-alone_lists. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the references makes or discusses any list of rapists by number of rapes like this. However meticulous, this is original research and fails WP:LISTN which states "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". SteveStrummer (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:LISTN I would argue Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In that vein of argument then, I urge you to demonstrate how the list contains "recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes". SteveStrummer (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It helps with navigation by listing all those who are called serial rapists in their own articles.  D r e a m Focus  19:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That navigation would be better suited to a category. As you yourself stated above, this list is just a list of those serial rapists who have Wikipedia articles. It's not a definitive list, but the title presents it as if it were, which would be misleading to any researchers. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It would navigation for researchers. WP:IMPERFECT. List does not have to be complete. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That navigation would be better suited to a category. As you yourself stated above, this list is just a list of those serial rapists who have Wikipedia articles. It's not a definitive list, but the title presents it as if it were, which would be misleading to any researchers. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It would navigation for researchers. WP:IMPERFECT. List does not have to be complete. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per - this list is useful for our core readership of students, of whom very few know how to navigate by category; it's not OR. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, Per above, It's a valid sociological list Alex-h (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTN RockingGeo (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment for those of you arguing to keep this on the basis that it's purely navigational / an index? It is not list of serial rapists, but list of serial rapists by number of victims. That is not an index but an encyclopedic list. That's why this needs sources which treat them as a group sufficient to pass LISTN (and not just "we have a category" -- because we don't have Category:List of serial rapists by number of victims). This is also why it should just be merged into the serial rapist article. No prejudice against creating a simply list of serial rapists for navigation purposes. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be renamed List of serial rapists.  It'll still list the numbers and other information of course, just as other such lists do.   D r e a m Focus  21:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to List of serial rapists as all names in the list are notable. Also tidy up the article by removing all original research including the possible victims column. Ajf773 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2019 (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.