Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Randall (serial killer)

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 no consensus. This individual has clearly received a fair amount of news coverage, but that isn't really the issue here. The main point of contention is whether this is a good example of WP:BLP1E. Cogent arguments are made on both sides, but the fact that neither side seems to have made a great deal of headway convincing the other suggests to me that reasonable people differ here: there is no consensus whether BLP1E is correctly here, and hence no consensus to delete. ~ mazca ^talk 19:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Randall (serial killer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only source is a primary source of the trial document. Text speculates other crimes for which the subject was not convicted or even charged. If someone wants to improve sourcing and content that'd be okay, but as it stands AFD'ing per BLP (back end of New Pages patrol here, little leisure for article rescue and distasteful subject). Durova³¹⁹ 05:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- There seems to be an active discussion below, so without unilaterally withdrawing this nomination I'd keep based upon the expansion and additional sources. Durova³²⁰ 04:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fair enough. To give credit where credit is due, DustFormsWords has done a great job in sourcing and expanding the piece since its nomination for AFD. I'll give her/him a hand starting tomorrow morning and at the end of two weeks, revisit and express your opinion of what has been done. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 04:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, kudos to DustFormsWords. On the back end of new pages patrol there usually isn't time to do much more than categorize and copyedit. I'm not actually a deletionist or an inclusionist. Was on the fence about whether this constituted a BLP issue. Glad to see it turn into a real article. Durova³²⁰ 04:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks peoples! I'm not much committed to this article one way or another - never heard of the fellow before coming here - but having stumbled across it by accident it seemed like a challenge to dust it up and make it useful. Here's hoping we keep it but thanks anyway to everyone for their contributions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The lone reference isn't sufficient to establish notability. If someone wants to find more and polish this up I'll consider changing my vote but that's up to those who want to keep the article (if anyone does). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Keep per helpful refs sound by Shoessss. Article does need to be renamed though. Why not move it to Incubator per Jack? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lone reference is to the transcript of the appeal, which clearly establishes he was found guilty of two counts of murder. I think that's sufficiently notable. There's still work that needs to be done around the "allegations" and "suspicions" and more references could probably found, but none of that merits deletion. I've started the work on improving the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/James Randall (serial killer); Wikipedia:Article Incubator needs a test case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two murders doesn't normally qualify as a serial killer, so the title may have to change. pablo_hablo. 11:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is enough information out there to expand on the piece, as shown here [1]. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established per Shoessss. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability from news articles like [2], [3], [4], and [5]. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The title of the article is incorrect. While heinous, Randall "only" killed two people. By definition, a serial killer has killed 3 or more people. I'm not sure if anyone else cares, but I thought it was worth pointing out. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I care! Look up. pablo_hablo. 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness is tough. Yes, even convicted murderers count as BLP subjects. The crimes he has been convicted of are awful enough; let's not make him out as worse than the courts do. If there's adequate sourcing and the inverse-peacock phrasing is eliminated I'll withdraw the nomination. Durova³¹⁹ 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you are referring to the term Serial Killer, looking at the references I supplied above, a vast majority of them title Mr. Randall as a Serial Killer. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of every ordinary criminal. See WP:NOTNEWS as well. A crime or criminal gets a slash of news coverage, but is not suitable for an encyclopedia unless it has wider consequences, like new laws (such as Megan's Law or the Amber Alert), or secondary coverage like books or movies (such as In Cold Blood). Edison (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe that WP:BLP1E applies here; the event "being caught and convicted." James Randall is a proven double-murderer, not a serial killer. pablo_hablo. 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the reasons of expediency, let me address the concerns of the last two preceding opinions in chronological order. First, two of the most infamous Serial Killers; Ted Bundy and Kenneth Bianchi never generated new laws or secondary coverage such as a movie on their lives. Being a Serial Killer was considered notable in and of itself. To address the term Serial Killer, as a concern expressed by pabloas not being worthy to be bestowed on Mr. Randall, it seems that the St. Petersburg Times - Worcester Telegram Gazette - Tampa Tribune - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Miami Herald and Star Tribune, as shown in the above supplied references, have all labeled him as such. Are we qualified to disagree? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWould you please go watch Ted Bundy (film) and the films "The Hillside Strangler" and Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders rather than sitting at your keyboard and falsely claiming there are no secondary sources for those murderers? Also note the 950 results at Google Book Search for Ted Bundy and the 682 for the "Hillside Strangler."These murderers are not automatically notable and entitles to an encyclopedia article because they killed more than one person. Edison (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (I already voted to Keep above, that vote still stands) - I've done further work on improving the article. In summary, two confirmed killings, active police investigation into other deaths, a past rape and kidnapping conviction (which I can't find more about just yet) and a feature on a television show whose mandate is to highlight notable crimes. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies - that would seem to more properly encompass "kid gets stuck up tree" kind of stories. This is a man with a long and significant history of violent crime and one of the comparitively few people in America each year to receive a death sentence (even if it was reversed on appeal). Given that Wikipedia is not paper, it seems best to err on the side of keeping, providing it's properly cited and readable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm just as happy to remove the "serial killer" references from the article but I'm relatively new and don't know how; someone want to help out? -- DustFormsWords (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Further Note - I've done significant additional work on the article, it's now much more substantial than when it was proposed for deletion. Further suggestions for improvement welcome. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still not seeing that WP:BIO and WP:N are satisfied. Edison (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Edison - but could you explain how you feel they're not satisfied? It's not a "one event" issue - there's a history of multiple serious felonies across different states established. Coverage is from several sources stretching over a period of more than two decades, and given that there are still ongoing investigations into the unsolved Cote case there's likely to be further coverage over years to come. I'm not clear on what would be necessary at this stage to bring the article up to a higher standard of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further - specifically re WP:BIO - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Randall has received hundreds of news stories of coverage, with the majority being between 1996 and 2008, from independent secondary sources (largely newspapers), covering (a) the initial disappearance/death of Cote, (b) Randall's assaults/rapes/kidnappings in the 1980s, (c) the deaths of Evans and Pugh, (d) Randall's flight from police and subsequent recapture, (e) his initial trial, (f) his subsequent appeal, and (g) continuing investigations using new evidence to link him to Cote's death. Ten years of news covering multiple crimes against multiple victims is hardly a single event or a flash in the pan. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an archive of news stories. It covers things of historic importance. An index of this would be coverage in secondary sources such as books, or movies, or plays, or societal changes, or legislation. Killing two people and going to prison is not enough to be enshrined forever in encyclopedias. Edison (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting and valid philosophical position, but it's not the notability policy as I read it on either WP:BIO or WP:N. Each of the 100 oldest humans ever to have lived has their own Wikipedia page on no greater notability than their age; very few of these people have been enshrined in books, movies, plays, societal changes or legislation. Randall's had significant news coverage over more than a decade, he's been featured on an international television program, and there are neutral-source allegations, with citations, that strongly connect him with the magic "third murder" that makes him a serial killer, and ongoing investigations making him a person of interest in relation to more than ten other deaths. To put it another way - I don't think it's good logic to say that this would be notable were a movie to be made of it - that's the cult of popular culture talking. Better to say, an otherwise unremarkable movie might become notable by dealing with these real-life events. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by way of precedent - Carl Eugene Watts - two convictions, plus other unverified admissions, no legislative changes, books or movies, featured on a similar show to Randall. Claremont serial murders - two murders, no established pop culture impact, only book is written by a participant. Robert Charles Browne - two convictions plus subequent confessions, no cultural impact demonstrated Jeffrey Gorton - two convictions, no pop culture impact. Now, it may be that all those should be nominated for deletion too - or on the other hand, it could be that Wikipedia is comfortable with the idea that multiple-murderers with extensive press coverage are notable enough to get a page, even before you take into account ongoing investigations and prior rape and kidnapping convictions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it is not generally considered a powerful one. Looking at previous AFD outcomes, where articles were actually judged as to whether their subjects were of encyclopedic notability or just old news, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilberta Estrada (mother killed 4 daughters and herself, deleted). Edison (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberta Estrada is a single event killer and a closed case, neither of which are applicable here. I note that you (Edison) put forward a (reasonable, thought provoking and well explained) proposed policy Wikipedia:Notability_(news) which failed to gain consensus for being too prescriptive, but that even under that policy Randall falls within the notability criteria by being "the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of (relevantly) documentaries", ie the referenced television piece. Going on to have a secondary argument about what constitutes a documentary and whether documentaries need to meet some level of quality, length or distribution would seem to be taking the debate to an unnecessary level. As always thanks for bringing your experience and intelligence to making Wikipedia such a noteworthy part of the internet! - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Not every serial killer is notable.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was initially going say Delete on the basis of WP:BLP1E, but the thing is, he keeps popping up in the news, tied to different events. In 2007 they're saying maybe he killed this other person[6]; the supreme court ruling in 2000 garnered media attention[7]; then there was his arrest and the trial itself, etc. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment James Randall (murderer) looks like it is available as a suitable target for renaming. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.