Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Ratzmann


 * 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 of the debate was Keep, discounting all the sockpuppets and AfD-purposed accounts. --Deathphoenix 03:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Terry Ratzmann
I think this article is POV or does not have enough infomation regarding itself. Adnghiem501 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs work, but bio of a mass murderer is probably notable. Crunch 01:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, certainly needs work, though I don't see anything wildly POV about it - it's rather sparse on detail. But yes, mass-murderers are suitably verifiable and notable. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up; subject meets notability guidelines for his involvement in a newsworthy event. --Muchness 01:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You all need more improvement to this article. What is the consensus you all want to keep if not expanding it? Adnghiem501 01:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Muchness. Ruby 01:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per POV UmJamma 03:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - lacks background info - not fit for an encyclopedia Big Bill Saxon 03:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Adnghiem501's logic WPZONR888 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete seems a bit too POVish for my tastes Fapmaster Flex 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - just plain not useful BMXJouster 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - the guy is notable for the same reason Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are. BTW, POV is not grounds for deletion; see WP:DP.  Dbtfz  Signing again, this time with timestamp: Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not worth an encyclopedia entry - people kill each other all day, it doesn't make them notable Mike McKenzie 03:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is already covered at Living_Church_of_God and there isn't much more to say about it. Peyna 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundant as per Peyna Josh Barnett 04:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Non notable psychopath. The world is filled with people like this, and they're simply not encyclopedic in the detail we can cover them. Wikipedia is not and can never become a Psychology Journal MKBR3 04:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Covered in other articles. Pikachu3 04:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not valuable in present form; little room for expansion. TR90210 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - How many people do you have to kill to get your own Wikipedia article? Is there an official policy on this?  Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * One, if you kill the right person. Peyna 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Subject is notable, and POV/bad writing isn't grounds for deletion. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe we need a set of notability criteria for criminals, much like we have for musicians and public figures. BMXJouster 04:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, 693 individual google hits, none of which seem to be mirrors or anything, he's rather notable. CNN has a photo gallery dedicated to the shootings. It's crossed my mind that User:Adnghiem501 is a little too zealous to have this article deleted, having only joined WP earlier this month, today he not only listed this article for deletion, but also tried to have the photograph in the article deleted as "No source" even though it had a source listed. (Seems there are multiple sources for the photograph though, some claim AP licensings, others say it was released by police, others say released by family) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Further Comment - worth noting that the page is even wikilinked from March 2005 in the United States, so I would assume it is fairly notable if we're marking it as one of the events of that month in history. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment there isn't even a documentary or 60 minutes segment about this guy. Non-notable. MKBR3 05:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * COMMENT TO CLOSING ADMIN: I'd also like to point out to the closing administrator that every user who voted Delete in this AfD, with the exception of User:Peyna and the nominator, seems to have created an account for the sole purpose of voting in this AfD. At the time of this posting, all of them have only 1 edit, while User:BMXJouster has 3 edits. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (User:BMXJouster, who just created his account today, originally deleted this post, I am restoring it) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)
 * Okay, now he has deleted all of these comments a second time, vandalizing the vote. I guess that clears up any doubts. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, now a third time that User:BMXJouster has deleted this information. I'm now reporting him for vandalism. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A 4th and 5th time now, that he's deleted the opposing viewpoints pointing out that they're all his own sockpuppets voting Delete. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please give the admins more credit than this. First, you've turned the AfD page into an awful mess.  A simple sockpuppet notice at the top of the AfD would have been sufficient.  Second, you're also likely creating a bias against a delete vote by your actions, since editors will see this mess and automatically assume that the nomination was in bad faith.  I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please bear in mind that closing admins are supposed to look at such things when determining consensus.  Also, bear in mind that this is not a vote. Peyna 16:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. And let me just say that I am incredibly concerned with the vote-stacking and vandalism I am seeing in this AfD.  Cyde Weys  05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mild delete. As much as it pains me to agree with a vandal and his/her/its sock puppets, I don't think this guy is notable enough.  If we list every serial killer in history, this wiki will be full of way too much information on them.  --Nlu (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, with some expansion. This guy was notable, and covered by major news networks in the United States (and elsewhere?). Needs a slight expansion since it seems to be more about his actions (the murders), than about the actual person.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  06:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Wisco 06:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Seems notable. Needs clean-up, and I'll be happy to do that. Compu  te  r  Jo  e  08:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The subject is notable, it was all over the news some time back (for example, on CNN). True, it needs some work, but it definitely belongs in Wikipedia.  Ikh (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 11:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep cleanup, focus on the facts, I dont see POV in article t this timestamp. &mdash;This user has left wikipedia  12:25 2006-01-24
 * Keep - Agree that needs to be cleaned up; however, the story seems notable enough. James084 16:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable story that belongs on Wikipedia High Plains Drifter 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per precendent; most other mass murderers have entries.  Oh no  itsJamie Talk 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous vote. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes the Google test, needs some rewriting to make it not look like a newspaper article, though. O bli (Talk) 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep lots of verifiably important information Ziggurat 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; seems like your basic notable crime story. Not as interesting as Colin Ferguson, perhaps, since there will be no trial, but rises to the level of other multiple homicide cases. I don't really know why this is controversial. MCB 01:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, per sockpuppetry and per good taste. To hell with it all. I'm sure Mr Ratzmann himself is heading that way as well. --Agamemnon2 06:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, he already is. My bad. --Agamemnon2 06:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep obviously notable.  Grue   14:42, 25 January 2006 (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.