Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of serial killers by number of victims (2nd nomination)

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 without prejudice to any talk page consensus to rescope or even merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

List of serial killers by number of victims[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Per a similar AfD (which looks to be leaning toward delete). I feel similar arguments are raised there, so this might be worth deleting as well.

The list inclusion criteria provided make this list OR (what inherently makes a serial killer from pre-1900 different and worth including in a different list? Why are medical killers treated as something else entirely? Why are entries included if they have no known perpetrator? What defines a serial killer, and which definition does this page use - multiple jurisdictions have changed their terminology). Also, as was raised in that discussion, the list is "grotesque". PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a source of public fascination, perhaps more so than any other category of criminal activity. BD2412 T 00:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of serial killers shows just how many list we have for them. List of serial killers before 1900 does exist for those not on this list, with a column for the number of victims you click on and have it show you the order, who had the most. The information here is spread out in many other articles, based on nation the murders happened in, and lists how many victims they had there. Are people fascinated by how many victims a serial killer in a nation different than theirs has? Clicking the link at the top of the AFD to see how many views this article has had, in the past 90 days its had 606,851. So a lot of people are interested in this information. The media does cover this notable aspect of the criminals. Dream Focus 01:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep: Not very good nomination rationale (especially on the latter point, since Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED). The points about any potential OR would not hold weight because it is not bad enough for a WP:TNT. Selection criteria can be hashed out on the talk page, although, as with anything, if multiple sources call someone a serial killer, they probably are. (It is unlike the familicide page where the selection criteria are largely arbitrary. This is just ordering the total kills of a serial killer.) The problem with separating pre-1900s and medical professional serial killers also has nothing to do with deletion. Those are separate issues. Lastly, while not necessarily a valid point, this is one of Wikipedia's most popular pages. It clearly has interested readers. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Keep: You can't delete something just because it's "grotesque". Might as well delete every serial killer's page if that's the case. As others have pointed out there is clearly significant public interest in this page, so it's clearly notable as well. Issues with the selection criteria are an issue for the talk page, not for deletion.--Tulzscha (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. I would have voted for "delete" for List of rampage killers (familicides in the United States) though. Azuredivay (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see any substantial difference between the list of mass killers by death toll and the lists of serial killers by death toll, in terms of deletion rationale? Both have arbitrary criterions for list inclusion and both are "grotesque". Doesn't make sense for one list to be deleted but keep the other. Just because it gets a lot of views is not a reason to keep it. Serial killers are a notable topic, but is ranking them by death toll notable? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate set of information. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I appreciate the issues raised such as medical personnel being listed separately, I don't think there is a sufficient rationale to delete here. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a popular page, and it's not fair to delete something just because it's "grotesque." I think it could be better organized, yes, but I don't think it calls for deletion. 2603:6080:D141:A700:900A:4D54:D1C7:853E (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to appropriate entries in Lists of serial killers. Something that appears not to have been mentioned here, but is quite relevant -- most "keep" votes simply say that the idea of a list of serial killers is notable, and should not be deleted -- we already have twelve of them.

Here, the issue is not whether we should have a list of serial killers at all: it's whether we should have a separate, additional list devoted to ranking them by high score. I don't think this is necessary. jp×g 🗯️ 03:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reliable sources that discuss or list some of the deadliest serial killers. That fact alone allows it to meet WP:NLIST. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google news search for "sexiest" reveals some hundreds of potential list articles, like List of hotels by sexiness, Sexiest volleyball players, List of sexiest songs, etc -- not sure if these really meet the bar for inclusion. jp×g 🗯️ 07:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that "sexiness" is a completely arbitrary metric while the number of victims is a fact of general encyclopedic interest. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By what metric -- the existence of news headlines about it? Did you see the link I posted?

O'Hare, Maureen (January 13, 2024). "Inside the world's best, and sexiest, hotels for 2024". CNN.
"Sexiest NFL players: Wide receivers for Houston Texans, Dallas Cowboys make top 10 list". khou.com. January 19, 2024.
Truffaut-Wong, Olivia (January 19, 2024). "40 Sexiest Netflix Shows You'll Want to Watch with the Lights Off". Cosmopolitan.

Are these not sufficient "facts of general encyclopedic interest"? Surely sexiness is more interesting than murder -- after all, the number of times I've had sex is much higher than the number of times I've committed murder. jp×g 🗯️ 00:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not something is "sexy" is entirely a matter of personal taste, whereas number of victims is an objective fact, hence why one is a fact of encyclopaedic interest and one is not.--Tulzscha (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An objective fact is not an encyclopedic fact. Should we have another separate list of serial killers ordered by height, because height is a fact? jp×g 🗯️ 20:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial killers aren't known for their height. They are known for killing. Similarly, basketball stars are known for their height which is why List of tallest players in National Basketball Association history exists. Your arguments are not very convincing. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I should ask a more illustrative question: given that there is already a series of articles that lists serial killers by country, how many duplicate lists, containing the same information, should there be? jp×g 🗯️ 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the amount of pageviews it gets indicate it is an important and useful list. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly useful list. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the list perhaps should be merged with some others, also inclusion criteria have to be tweaked: I hardly understand what people with 3 possible victims are doing in a list of serial killers. But unfortunately notoriety is a thing, and it is within the scope of an encyclopaedia to provide the information like this. --Base (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2024 (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.