Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unidentified murder victims in the United States


 * 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

List of unidentified murder victims in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY as both "a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" and a "repository of loosely associated topics". This list is an original grouping that is never discussed collectively as a list in any sources; mainly compiled through original research using WP:PRIMARY sources. Several of the entries are an original synthesis of materials found in the NAMUS, The Doe Network, and DNA Doe Project websites; all of which are primary sources. According to NAMUS, "4,400 unidentified bodies are recovered each year, with approximately 1,000 of those bodies remaining unidentified after one year." There is therefore nothing unusual about being an unidentified murder victim. This is essentially WP:LISTCRUFT. Lastly, the list is inherently unstable as bodies are identified with some frequency. It should be noted that no other lists like this exist on wikipedia for any other country or other location designation. 4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Crime,  and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory for these types of lists. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing particularly notable about any one particular case, sad yes, but I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete. I can actually see an argument that this is an encyclopedic cross-classification. The murder victims being unidentified is noteworthy in that context, it's not just some arbitrary "X of Y." That said, there are lots of murder victims in the US—this can't possibly be an exhaustive list of otherwise non-notable murder cases. At the very least, it needs strong selection criteria applied to it, such as only covering victims of notable crimes. Personally I think Category:Unidentified murder victims in the United States sufficiently covers this anyways. There's a lot of content here though, and some of it might be worth rescuing to main articles covering the crimes themselves. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 16:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the category sufficiently covers this content. I don't think the content on this page is worth rescuing for two reasons. One, there is a lot of original synthesis of primary sources on this page which should not be moved into other articles. Two, the notable cases included in this list have stand alone articles already with much more detailed content. The shorter descriptions on this page were for the most part taken from those more developed articles and not the other way around. In short, in deleting this page we aren't losing any verifiable content that isn't located elsewhere, but we are eliminating a bunch of poorly written original synthesis of primary sources which would be a good thing. Lastly, the challenges of maintaining a list like this should be considered. Bodies are often identified without secondary RS covering the identification. Bodies do get routinely identified without much notice, and maintaining a current and accurate list does require the monitoring of law enforcement databases and other primary sources like NAMUS. In effect, the list by nature necessitates that we engage with original research in order to maintain accuracy. This would seem to go against both WP:No original research and the spirit of WP:NLIST. I really don't think this an encyclopedic cross-categorization for that very reason. We shouldn't be creating a WP:MIRROR of NAMUS and other such primary sources by housing a list of this kind. 4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 100% agreed on the NOR and NLIST issues. I think you make good points on why none of this is worth saving on other pages, so I'll change my !vote to support deletion. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 04:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I agree with your statements, but this does serve a purpose for people into Criminology, Forensics, and Unsolved Mysteries. Also this is of interest to the Websleuths community. But I wouldn't really care if this got deleted. There are lots of useless articles that serve no purpose such as List of Street Fighter characters and List of unexplained sounds among many others I cant recall off the top of my head.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn’t a policy based argument. Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL.4meter4 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s just someone’s essay but regardless I think it should stay for right now. There are articles more useless than this that are up. But if it gets deleted it really wouldn’t matter Fruitloop11 (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point. The essay articulates why its useful arguments do not align with our policies at WP:N. More importantly, WP:NOTEVERYTHING (which is policy) makes it clear that usefulness is not the measuring stick we use for content inclusion. Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM for websleuths and amateur detectives interested in unsolved murders, nor is it a mirror or promotional tool for NAMUS, the DNA Doe Project, law enforcement websites, etc. It's also not a repository of loosely associated topics (like in this list), or a platform for original research. Take your pick from all of the policies linked here. There are many policies demonstrating why this is not an appropriate article to include on wikipedia, because fundamentally, wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose content should be verifiable to multiple reliable secondary sources and include content free from original research or original synthesis.4meter4 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2022 (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.