Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Craigslist killers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Merge to Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users Icestorm815 • Talk 02:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Craigslist killers

[edit]
See also: Internet killer (AfD discussion) and Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users (AfD discussion).
List of Craigslist killers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Alleged that title uses generic term not found in sources and/or contains predominance of non-notable entries ↜Just me, here, now … 09:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Entries seem notable and the generic term is suppported in sources. (However, some contributors keep blanking portions of its text or redirecting. What say ye? Ie, I took the unusual tack of nominating this article for deletion despite my own impression that such a deletion rationale is faulty.) ↜Just me, here, now … 09:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also would support a merge to Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users: a more all-encompassing list. ↜Just me, here, now … 12:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC items 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users, as List of Craigslist killers fails the List criteria by itself. However, it is encompassed by Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users. Cheers. Imperator 11:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This was inappropriately referred to AfD, since the nominator is electing to keep! The article is under discussion on the talk page. It had, until the nominator moved Craigslist killer to List of Craigslist killers without discussion, been wavering between an article and a disambig page, with a list being mentioned as a possibility but there being no consensus for it. These issues should be hashed out on the talk page. I referred the article to the Mediation Cabal upon the suggestion of Third Opinion and also requested input from the Crime and Internet Culture wikiprojects. Шизомби (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This term appears 1,700+ times in sources so I dunno what the nom means. If the list contains non-notable cases, they can be removed... that doesn't require article deletion. This clearly passes WP:LC criteria 4 and 10 due to the sources. I think criteria 1 is hopelessly subjective (you could say a list of county seats in California was created "just for the sake of having such a list"). As for the "list is of interest to a very limited number of people" or "the list is unencyclopaedic" arguments, I dunno, I can see that. But then again, 1700 sources... it may be a silly trend in my opinion, but it's one the media apparently cares about. I think there's enough sources to justify some sort of an article here... maybe a list is a silly format, but nevertheless deletion isn't called for. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The article consists of two paragraphs and a list. The two paragraphs are pure original research and the sources are used to make it seem like the information is referenced when it actually isn't. The information in the article is based on personal research performed by a single editor, and the editor has admitted this on the talk page. This particular information cannot be found outside of Wikipedia. Not a single source in the body of the article (first two paragraphs) directly supports the material. Without interpretive elements, the list could easily be merged into Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users. This is a classic example of original research and should be used as a learning exercise for new editors. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dunno. The sources cited appear to be doing a lot of the conjecture (e.g. the New York Daily News specially makes the connection between craigslist killings and earlier 'want ad killers'). If there's some original research in the first two paragraphs, it's still not all OR. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made the same mistake the first time I read it. Read it the second time. You will see that it actually makes a completely different claim than the one in the article. It's almost deceptive how it was done. It is completely OR because none of it can be verified outside of Wikipedia, not even in the sources. Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, good catch. Except I wouldn't say it's a completely different claim... however, the source doesn't actually claim Craigslist killers are the modern want ad killers... it just implies it. It's a fine line. The claim about "The first use of the term Craigslist killings may date to..." does seem like classic OR - someone searched a news database, found the earliest entry, made a conclusion... that's fine for a newspaper article or a paper but not for Wikipedia. The rest of the sources seem to just use the term "craigslist killer". This is a very tricky case. I think what we need is a source that says "'Craigslist killer' is a type of criminal..." rather than just a source that uses the term 'craiglist killer' in articles about specific criminals? Does such a source exist? --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 13:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with new article Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users (which itself could use a beezier title). As of last time I reviewed the sources, none of the sources establish that there is a distinct phenomenon (or even such a thing) as a "craigslist killer". It's just a turn of phrase that sometimes appears in newspaper headlines. Even the sources that use them tend to use the expression once in the headline or sometimes the lead, then make no effort to describe it as a phenomenon, just isolated incidents. It appears to be a non-notable intersection of two different things - murders, and people using craigslist. The problem is that categorizing murders as "X killers" (when X is cruise ships, match.com, Hilton Hotels, disco clubs, dungeons and dragons clubs) is unencyclopedic. To be fair there does seem to be a preoccupation with Craigslist among the tabloid press, and among more serious press when they are being sensationalistic. So there is a valid question whether the pop culture fascination with Craigslist is itself notable. If so, then there might be a notable subject in there, but it is best covered by secondary sourcing about the phenomenon itself rather than the OR / SYNTH of combing news stories and then making a list of them. In a broader article about the subject of Craigslist incidents, though, it might make sense to have a sourced list of such incidents. So, in sum, I would either delete as proposed or merge with the similar article about the wider topic the entire range of crimes and scandals where the medium is Craigslist but Craigslist is not a party (some of these are already on the Craigslist article). Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users. The fact there seems to be a preoccupation with Craigslist among the tabloid press and among more serious press when they are being sensationalistic does not necessarily make this topic all that encyclopedic in nature and worthy of its own article. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This whole thing is being handled very badly. We now have Philip Markoff, List of Craigslist killers, Craigslist killer (Boston), Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users, Internet killer, Lonely hearts killer, Michael John Anderson, maybe others, all having to do with mostly the same thing. If people would just have more patience and handle things properly on the talk pages, these articles and AfDs might not be multiplying at this rate. These things could probably be handled in a single article or sections of other existing articles. Шизомби (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.......

    The key to avoiding information overload is to break an article down into more than one page[...]. These can start out as section headings and be broken out into separate pages as the main article becomes too long. [...]Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information, full of railroad timetables and comprehensive lists. But any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible.---META:WIKI IS NOT PAPER#ORGANIZATION

    .......I/e per the vision of the Project, if it's notable, we cover it; yet -- especially so as not to make our readers' eyes glaze over with stuff they're not looking up -- we break all notable stuff down into pieces of increasingly more-and-more precise and distinct detail.... ↜Just me, here, now … 02:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and wrt whether an Item Become A Newsmedia Touchstone must be precluded from Wiki-coverage.......

    As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion. Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.--WP:CRUFT ↜Just me, here, now … 02:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete becasuse it has already been Merged to Internet killer: Last night, when the article Craigslist killer was blanked and restored repeatedly without warning (see the "badly handled" comment above), the material was subsumed into and made a part of the broader article Internet killer, where it now already resides. Craigslist is merely a subset of the internet -- the internet killer phenomenon has been studied from a sociological perspective (and has links to the study of the Online predator phenomenon as well). It is true that there are a gazillion more google hits for the term "Craigslist killer" in quotes than for "Internet killer" in quotes -- but the latter is a broader topic, as it encompasses chatroom suicide-homcide pact killers and the widespread fictional use of the bogeyman of an "internet serial killer" (e.g. characters named "the internet killer" that predate the use of the term to describe actual murder cases). In stating this opinion, i acknowledge that "Internet killer" has been listed for AfD by Viriditas, but given the amount of sourcing available, it is my opinion that it should and will survive that test. catherine yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOVEL, Jayron32? How so? ↜Just me, here, now … 07:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC) You mean some literarly wraith of conjunction betwixt criminal and venue?[reply]

With the white road smoking behind him and his rapier brandished high!
Blood-red were his spurs in the golden noon, wine-red was his velvet coat
When they shot him down in the highway,
Down like a dog in the highway,
And he lay in his blood in the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat.

And still on a winter's night, they say, when the wind is in the trees,
When the moon is a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas,
When the road is a gypsy's ribbon looping the purple moor,
The [Craigslist]man comes riding--
Riding--riding-- —(WITH APOLOGIES to NOYES(?)) ↜Just me, here, now … 13:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What we have is a few random news headlines that use the phrase "Craigslist Killer" in a few random unrelated murders. To claim that this represents a coherant concept is a novel synthesis of ideas; this article taken some unrelated news articles, picked a few coincidental facts from them, and placed them together in such a way to indicate that this represents some larger coherent trend or idea rather than what it is, which is a random set of unrelated events. tied together by coincidence. Find me an article that discusses the concept of "Craigslist killer" as a concept rather than some random news stories that show some random killers that used Craigslist, and you may have something article worthy. Until then, the article is merely the novel synthesis of some unrelated events. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be more specific, if you would. It doesn't seem like novel synthesis but more like a given or a logical deduction. See Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Simple_or_direct_deductions. Шизомби (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I could compile a list of murderers born on April 17th, and create an article titled "List of Killers Born on April 17th". Factual, check. Verifiable, check. Worthy of note as a concept? Not unless I can find a reliable source which notes that this particular fact is worthy of note. To claim that a fact is significant enough of a fact to build an article around by compiling a list of reliable sources which mention that fact, but which do not give significance to that fact in the way that the Wikipedia article does is not merely a logical deduction, it is the creation of significance merely from coincidence. Unless someone else finds it significant, to do so ourselves is original research. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't inclusion/exclusion criteria apply across the board and not catch as catch can or willy-nilly? It seems that some here are somewhat overplaying your hand about a need to establish notability for the phenomenon. Off the top of my head, it seems to be a premise that

    *"List-type" articles and article sections must contain sources that extol the notability of the combination of the underlying components of such lists itself

    -- is that at all close to what you are arguing here? But, if this is so, wouldn't such a criteria be enforceable upon any random set of list-type articles that one could assemble from throughout the encyclopedia?
-
But...let's see!
  1. "Presidents" and "nickname" generates Presidential nicknames. "Nay." These are culled from the sources without citing any sources that comment on the importance of nicknames to presidential politics or whatever.
  2. "Obama" and "family" generates Family of Barack Obama. Yet no sources are provided that explain the importance of this combination.
  3. "Socks (cat)" and "cultural references" generates the section Socks (cat)#Cultural references. "Nay." No reference explains the importance of Socks the cat to American culture.
  4. "Nikola Tesla" and "popular culture" generates Nikola Tesla in popular culture. Ditto.
  5. "LGBT," "characters," "television," and "soap operas" are combined to form the section List of television shows with LGBT characters#Soap operas. No references support the cultural significance of the combination of these components.
-
So we gotta conclude a "nay" there (and rightly so, to avoid mass deletions of quality material from the encyclopedia!) ↜Just me, here, now … 07:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we seat patrons without dinner jackets at the bar and patrons with dinner jackets at tables, we're still serving customers coming in with/without jackets. That is, if "illegal activities by users of Craigslist" isn't a neologism, how is "killings by Craigslist users"? And, if it is to be thought that the premise

    *"The article under review's list of Craigslist killers doesn't merit encyclopedic coverage due to some kind of 'neologism' within its defining parameters"

    -- is true, then it only follows we must delete the list (as concisely titled) not keep it, anyway, via merging it, except instead to Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users (as more cumberbunly...I mean, cumbersomely, titled). It is important to be consistent and well-defined in such criteria, or one class of patrons might get the impression they're not welcome because of their brogue accent when it's observed other parties who speak in Yankee tones get in, in informal attire, regardless of what inclusionary standard ostensibly is imposed..... How would those upholding the "neologism" etc. line defend your position in response to this line of attack, as it were? ↜Just me, here, now … 07:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a single reliable source that discusses the subject of "Craigslist killers" and reflects the content in this article. If you cannot do so, then the article must be deleted per Wikipedia's core content policy, WP:NOR. As it stands right now, the main points in an article about "Craigslist killers" were pieced together using information from multiple sources that are not directly relevant to the topic. WP:SYNTHESIS prevents us from doing this. The ideas and thoughts expressed in the article about "Craigslist killers" represent the opinions of the editor who wrote it and nobody else. The subject of the topic about "Craigslist killers" cannot be found outside Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is chock-full of RS. Sure the article has weak spots sourcing-wise here and there, in some verbiage attempting an overview. But simply remove the whole into or write your own -- don't get stuck on delete then in the next motion create an article that's a content fork...... Viriditas, in one breath you're arguing there is not enough sourcing for the whole piece and in the very next breath you're saying to merge most of its -- presumably adequately sourced -- content to elsewhere. But an argument for article deletion simply ain't equivalent to an argument for article merger, so you should get your rhetorical house in order. ↜Just me, here, now … 12:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Wikidemon, Jayron32, and Viriditas already mentioned in various ways, "craigslist killer" is a catchy phrase that sometimes shows up in headlines to describe separate isolated events. Using the jingly sounding title, "Craigslist killers", as if they are related implies a special phenomenon (but this has only been identified as such through synthesis by a Wikipedia editor). Can you find any reliable sources that discuss "Craigslist killers" in the plural as some special phenomenon? Likewise, the article "internet killer" even explicitly claims it is a journalistic term, yet provides no sources that use such a neologism describing the alleged phenomenon. In comparison, the clunkier title about various controversies makes no such association connected to made-up jingly terms, nor implies any sort of special phenomenon, but simply expands a paragraph about generic controversies that grew too large to fit in its parent article. --MPerel 17:53, 26 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Craigslist_killers&oldid=1248788776"