Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of murdered people

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. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of murdered people

List of murdered people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete - thoroughly indiscriminate list of people who have absolutely nothing in common other than being murdered. Otto4711 09:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not indiscriminate. You can't get on the list unless you're murdered. That's almost as difficult as some private clubs. Seriously, nothing wrong with this list. It's not in violation of any policy. — coelacan talk — 10:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. — coelacan talk — 11:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as [...] persons. Uncle G 15:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - not indiscriminate or subjective, clear factual criterion for inclusion. However, might be necessary to spin off into more precise lists (it's too long at present). Walton monarchist89 11:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Gigantic list of unrelated names. WP is not an online database. Pavel Vozenilek 11:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Too big? I don't think so. It can easily be split alphabetically if that becomes necessary. The information here may be useful to researchers and that's reason enough to keep it. We're not an online database, indeed, but this list has a very specific criterion for entry and there's been no policy-based argument yet for getting rid of it. — coelacan talk — 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Specific? It seems to include Janelle Patton (Philippa McDonald. "Norfolk murder trial worries tourism industry", ABC News, 2007-02-09.), Michael Dosunmu ("Four bailed over Peckham murder", InTheNews, 2007-02-09.), and Nina Courtepatte (Dean Bennett. "Witness at Alta teen's rape-murder trial says accomplices broke mall-rat code", Canadian Press, 2007-02-09.). How, exactly, is a criterion that encompasses such a diverse set of people across three continents "specific"? And how is a list that contains all of the murdered people that have ever been recorded an encyclopaedia article, rather than a database? Uncle G 15:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • You're quite right, it's uselessly indiscriminate. I blame my earlier !vote on a low blood-caffeine level. — coelacan talk — 11:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Far too general a list. Ok there is a clear factual criterion for inclusion, i.e. being murdered, but that is far to broad and wide-ranging a criterion for a list like this. Wikipedia is not a list of everything/everyone.If you have this list you'd have to allow "list of people killed in car accidents" etc. Jules1975 11:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment this list, mosts general lists of people, is limited to people likely to have articles in Wikipedia, i.e. you can't include yourself in List of people by name, unless there is already an article "Jules1975". -- User:Docu
  • WP:SCORCHEDEARTH: "The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article." It doesn't mean that we would "have to" allow anything at all. Consensus can be entirely different for every article, and that's okay. — coelacan talk — 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Never mind, I've changed my !vote anyway per Uncle G. — coelacan talk — 11:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Way, way, way too broad a list. This could conceivably contain millions of names. There's no guarantee a list of "people murdered by *method*" or "list of *occupation* who were murdered" would be any better, but it certainly wouldn't be as overly broad as this list. 23skidoo 13:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete too broad, and even if narrowed better as a category-Doc^g 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, put these people in the appropriate category instead. Rosemary Amey 16:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't know to what extent this list qualifies for deletion under WP:NOT#IINFO--there is a discriminating criterion (i.e., being murdered). However, this discriminating criterion is quite broad. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people are murdered each year across the world. If this list is intended to include only people whose deaths/murders are notable, then it should state so (that would, however, be List of notable murders, and I don't think this list can be converted into that one). Black Falcon 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As cool as it is to see that Dimebag Darrell and Pythagoras have something in common, the topic is too indiscriminate and fails WP:NOT. Charles Kinbote 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per [1] over 16,000 people a year are murdered in the U.S. alone. That makes this an arbitrary list of items, and necessarily incomplete. It mixes famous persons who were murdered, with persons famous ONLY because they were murdered, and mixes history with being a memorial site for sympathetic victims, which Wikipedia is not. It does not appear to have a good criterion for who makes the list and who does not. Inkpaduta 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - "The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable" and "The list is of interest to a very limited number of people" are contributing factors for deletion from WP:LC. There are daily reports of murders that make the news, and I don't think anyone coming to Wikipedia for information on a notable person who was murdered would first look through a long list of homicide victims. ◄Zahakiel► 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a policy or guideline. That being said murder is not that unusual a way to die, statistically speaking, so I'm not voting keep in this case.--T. Anthony 04:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Granted, it is an essay, which is why I said contributing factors, and not reasons. As you pointed out, murder is a fairly common way to die, and I believe that this renders the list, if not indiscriminate, an exercise in futility for proper maintenance. Common sense would indicate the problems here, as most commenting editors have pointed out. ◄Zahakiel► 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps the only thing in the universe that would be even more unmaintainable is "list of people." Resolute 07:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The scope of the list is well defined by its title, thus it's not an indiscriminate collection. Note: Lists of people generally include only people who are likely to have articles in wikipedia, thus generally homocide statistics are only marginally relevant to this discussion. -- User:Docu
• Delete. Nice list, Abel and JJ(1882), at least something in common. --MaNeMeBasat 14:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft as they say Usedup 03:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This kind of thing is generally better served by categories, but then this is not just a "dumb list" - the biographical snippets make this somewhat more useful and "browsable" than the equivalent category pages. So long as this list is restricted only to people notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles, I have no real problem with it. AdorableRuffian 21:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Too broad to be practical. Garion96 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete List will never be complete. Could include millions of entries. --AW 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete How about the Guinness Book of World Records argument - if we keep this list, people will have themselves murdered just to get on it? Seriously, endless and pointless. --Brianyoumans 09:16, 13 February 2007 (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.