Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Milat

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 per WP:SNOW. There is a clear consensus that the topic is notable in its own right; merge, remerge or demerge requests should take place on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 11:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Milat[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject of this article is the perpetrator of the backpacker murders. Per WP:PERPETRATOR, "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". He is not notable beyond the backpacker murders, and everything that needs to be said about him can be included in that article.

This article was created after Milat's death, and is just a cut-and-paste from the backpacker murders article. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Australia's most notable serial killer. Worth noting separately as he always maintained his innocence and may in the future be found not guilty even after his death. 58.179.159.63 (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I realise that this comment is in the nature of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but clearly some perpetrators do have their own article, eg Martin Bryant, Anders Behring Breivik, Jack the Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe. Ivan Milat is frequently called the most notorious Australian serial killer (eg The Guardian obit is titled "Ivan Milat, Australia's most notorious serial killer, dies aged 74" [1]; the ABC has "Secrets of the forest: Ivan Milat, Australia’s most notorious serial killer, is dead. How many more murders remain unsolved?" [2], and the BBC article starts "Ivan Milat, who died on Sunday, is one of the most notorious serial killers in Australia's history." [3]). So the question seems to be, what does "not normally" mean, and when is it not normal? I'd suggest that the most notorious serial killer, or even one of them, probably is "not normal". RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all serial killers deserves separate articles. But only the worst of the worst and those with plenty of third party reliable coverage. Such as Milat. Plenty of coverage throughout to justify separate article. Also per WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my view his notability or notoriety does in fact extend beyond the murders and his trial. As with Martin Bryant and others, an article with greater detail about Milat's life seems appropriate and not so appropriate in the Backpacker murders article. Yahboo (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is one of most notaries serial killer in Australia and sources from independent, reliable sources are presented. I dont see anything else but a keep. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the bolded comment by the nominator that this article was created after Milat's death, and is just a cut-and-paste from the backpacker murders article: an article about Ivan Milat was merged into the backpacker murders article in 2008, after discussion on the Talk page among 4 editors. Whoever created the separate article is in effect proposing that the articles be un-merged, and this deletion discussion is serving as a way to develop consensus on whether it remains a separate article. There is certainly precedence for articles on notorious killers separate from the article about their crimes, as I noted above. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. Bookscale (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2019 (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.