Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings by an individual


 * 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. KTC (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Mass killings by an individual

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Mass killing"? Whats the point of this and the table is incomplete by the thousands or millions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC) And so are innumerable other tables on Wikipedia. None of these claim to be exhaustive, so there is no point of discussion. Why should it be different here? Tavernsenses (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete It mixes killings that are the work of a single individual with events that required the collaboration of many. People who were ordered to do so in war time, under a penal system, or homicidal maniacs. The whole thing is intentionally a mixed bag,  lumping single acts and multiple, serial acts. So we have the sinking of ships during war by "unknown crew member" because someone would have eventually pushed the button at the end of a chain of command. The list isn't properly titled, even: some contents aren't "mass" killings because here on Wikipedia we make a distinction between mass killing ("simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time"), Spree killer (sequential) and Serial killer (in the sense that a "killer," the listed snipers or executioner, would work serially over a longer period of time), all of which are lumped together here. Moreover, I don't think you can say that the ordered dropping of a bomb or firing of a torpedo by a serviceman in a chain of command is an "individual" act. I have to say that I do respect what is perhaps the underlying philosophy of this list, which is that all of us have a responsibility for own actions when it comes to the taking of a life, regardless of the situation. But I still don't think it works.  Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a bizarre article which presents a ridiculously simplistic view of events. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC). In the light of article impartialty, is a 'view' that is as simple as possible not to be aspired? Should not, ideally, a Wiki article have no view at all? Tavernsenses (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete this collection of disparate events. User:Shawn in Montreal makes a cogent argument; cogent is preccisely what this article topic is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) What disparity? They're all mass killings, carried out by identifiable individuals. It's not like a list of people with blue eyes. Tavernsenses (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shawn in Montreal. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Retain Tavernsenses (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC) This article is mainly intended to list the killing (of other individuals) power that technological evolution has bestowed on single individuals, culminating in the destructive power of nuclear weapon technology. Torpedo technology seems to do rather well as well. There is to my knowledge no other article that focuses on this issue. All of the information contained is well referenced to Wikipedia sources, quantitatively (thus impartially) re-assorted. In true keeping with Wikipedia ethics, the article does not (unlike some of its reviewers) express any moral judgement, such as whether the killings were legally justified, acts of barbarism, carried out by a psychopath, or were effected by unwitting conscripts in the mist of a just war against a tyrant ideology of some description. It merely lists, in numerical order, the events in which multiple human lives were terminated as the result of the action of a single human. The article to that purpose explicitly requires that between the moment of action and the actual killings there is no other human intervention required or possible; the bombardier presses a button (action), an electric signal is sent to the A-bomb release system, the bomb auto-detonates, and people are killed, in a rather irrevocable manner. The bombardier literally does the killing, because the killing happens if he presses the button and the killing does not happen if he does not press the button, and there is no human intervention down the road that can alter or prevent the subsequent unleashing of deadly violence. He is the last human element in a long range of necessary processes and procedures aimed at destruction. It is not relevant that, had the bombardier refused to press the button, someone else would have, because then that second individual would have merely replaced the bombardier in the list. Neither is it relevant whether the bombardier was just following orders, was faced with court-martial if he didn't, or was on the contrary happy to give the Japs a thorough thrashing. Any speculation on his motivation does not befit a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, the responsibility for the killings may quite possibly be discussed in other Wikipedia articles, but not in present one. I am mindful of the feelings of anxiety certain readers may entertain upon seeing a beloved war hero listed in the same table as some murderous psychopath, but again, when composing impartial proper wikipedia articles, we should try to ignore feelings and confine our considerations to facts. Facts that have been well documented. No doubt, a nazi camp guard dropping off zyklon-B pellets into a gas chamber may potentially kill more people than torpedoing a troop ship would, but is he the only one doing the dropping? If not, it’s no longer a single individual, and you will have to conduct the rather macabre business of dividing the number people gassed in one go with the number of camp guard dropping pellets. And did that particular guard participate in other gassings? If not documented, he has no business appearing in the ranking. If documented, he has all the right in the world to prominently feature in it. In another example, we have no assertion whether someone who participated in multiple firing squads was issued the blank bullet or not (human ingenuity is apparently equally proficient at designing absconding technology). However, we do know for a fact that a single bombardier released a WWII A-bomb. Indeed, modern A-bombs may feature abort mechanisms, in which case a higher echelon person is able to neutralize the actions of the bombardier before they do any harm. In such case, that person (if he/she did not use that ability) has earned a place on the list, supplanting the bombardier. This is all entirely consistent with the outline at the beginning of the argument. As stated, the list is by no means exhaustive, nor does it purports to be so. And in that it does not differ from innumerable other listings on Wikipedia. It is exactly up to contributing readers to make it more exhaustive. And if anyone should feel an entry is poorly documented or referenced, this could be taken up by a hanging committee such as presently seated. But I do beg no to proceed too hastily with any other, more drastic action. Hopefully I have made a cogent argument for retaining this article in Wikipedia. And on a somewhat cynical note, I would like to end with the old NRA adagio; “it’s not guns that kill, it’s people that use them”. Tavernsenses
 * Alternatively, single individual could be changed to single action. That would exclude the serial killers, the henchman, the snipers etc. Tavernsenses (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You only get to vote once :-) -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research. Shawn in Montreal gives the long version and Nick-D gives the short version. - Location (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist" Where does the article fail to refer to reliable, published sources? Granted, it only refers to other Wikipedia pages, but the latter are externally referenced. Tavernsenses (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please quote the two sentences in WP:OR directly after that one. - Location (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This list is nonsense. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2015 (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.