Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved murders in the United Kingdom

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. Let's give it a chance; I'm sure it could be developed. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved murders in the United Kingdom[edit]

Delete Unsourced article. The fact "Unsolved" here is vague, it do not prove whether the murders are still unsolved, or solved. The article is a candidate of snowball deletion. There is no point of this article. In this way numerous such articles can be created for each and every country. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid topic, full of information to make it more than an indiscriminate list, well organized format... but there's NO excuse for not having sources, especially given the plethora of true crime books out there. Unsourced contributions might have been winked at back in 2005 when the article was created, but it doesn't go now. It's unlikely that any of these have been solved in the last three years, but there are enough clues here for any sleuth wannabe (and I don't wanna be) to follow in that department. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate listing. The "recentism" in selection of murders is such that there are lots of unsolved recent murders from the last few years but relatively few from older times. Highly selective in an arbitrary way. Clearly a vanishingly small sample of all the "unsolved" murders which have occurred in the UK. Edison (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rest of the objections notwithstanding, please note that WP:LIST defines what an "indiscriminate list" is; whatever other problems there are with this list, "indiscriminate" isn't one of them... Mandsford (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Edison, focuses entirely on recent times. Also, if a list of this type is allowed for the UK, what stops such lists for every other country in the world. In the US alone there would be hundreds of thousands of people to add. KnightLago (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who decides who's important enough to put on this list, or is every one of the unsolved murders going to be on this list, verified and deemed notable?... And that hits the nail on the head KnightLago... Not just the US... how 'bout India, China, etc.... I don't think this is a road that Wikipedia needs to go down.--Pmedema (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I cannot see how this is encyclopedic. This list could contain hundreds or thousands of people not connected in any way, except by being murdered. Most of the people will not be notable. This does not have the notability of, for example, List of massacres; which is a list of notable events. This is a list of tragic deaths but nonetheless non-notable people. EJF (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is adequately sourced for purposes of this discussion. The blue-linked murders such as Suzy Lamplugh and Carl Bridgewater are very notable and thousands of sources could be cited. The basis for inclusion seems obvious and any borderline cases are just a matter for normal content editing. The fact that similar articles could be written for other countries is irrelevant as is the incoherent comment about snowball deletion. The nomination seems to be quite without merit and is worse than the article into which some good editing effort has gone. Furthermore the suggestion that this topic is not encyclopedic is false. See many other encyclopedias. 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete wholly indiscriminate and arbitrary list of people with nothing in common. Unmaintainable. Reso lute 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has been pointed out already that this list is not indiscriminate by any means, but I think it bears repeating. It is incomplete, it has a bit of a recentist bent, and it lacks sourcing, but these are all surmountable problems that are not reasons for deletion. The list needs improvement, yes, but it does seem to be off to a good start. A word of caution to the article's core editors, however: you may want to come to a consensus on what constitutes a notable unsolved murder, so as to prevent the list from veering into "indiscriminate" territory. This may involve removing some of the entries currently on the list. If you would like some help in devising criteria, I'm more than willing to help; just drop me a note on my talk page. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has previously been nominated for deletion under another title and was kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved English murders. (PS- What is the template for the box thingy that shows previous AfDs?) LaMenta3 (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Glad you noticed that. I've put in the box now. Proper practice is to check the history (and this one has a long history) to see if there have been any deletion tags before, and then to alert everyone that the topic has been discussed. The title of the article was moved to its current name, with "murders in the UK" in between. Mandsford (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom's argument is that " numerous such articles can be created for each and every country." That's really getting it wrong--because we can make other similar articles, we shouldnt have this one? OtherStuffdoestnExist -- a new way of putting it. "This is the first article of the type we've done--delete it so we dont have to do others".? A good way to destroy the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both arguments presented for deletion are fallacious reassons for deletion but problems to be solved, or irrelevant, as stated by Lamenta3 and DGG. I think that the outcome of previous nominations shed enough light on this. Criteria for inclusion in the list should be clarified, but that's talk page stuff, no argument fo rdeletion (or an AfD for that matter). Gorgonzola (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inclusion criteria needs to be determined but the article should stay. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While article is in need of improvement and sourcing, it is a discrete abd valid topic. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to 'Notable unsolved murders in the United Kingdom' and source heavily. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of unsolved murders and deaths and reformat to make it look less like a complete list. The Dominator (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This stretches the boundaries of what can be realistically sourced - period - which means it will always violate - always - core policy and we therefore should not have an article on it. Classic example of unfettered listcruft that is populated and maintained by caprice. I don't see a single argument in favour of retention that addresses the RS question, which is rather more serious than the drive-by "source but keep" arguments would imply. Eusebeus (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I think we should add a separate column for "Source" and only accept sourced ones. If this proves impossible, there could always be another AfD on which I would be happy to vote delete, I still have faith that it can be sourced. The Dominator (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you are not right. Arguments for keep have been exposed that are more than just a drive-by "source but keep". My argument at least is: this is a list. notoriety of lists is given by the noteriety of the criteria for collection. if this criteria is factual and potentially relevant to a significant audience, the article is notorious. Care should be taken to ensure that the elements in the list conform to the criteria, wich is why we should source profusely, but this is not a valid objection to the pertinence of the article, or, to put it differently, an argument for deletion. if elements in the list appear to violate WP:OR then you are free and encouraged to remove them and comment in the talk page. That some elements present problems is of no relevance to the question on the pertinence of the set of said elements. This is not only my argument, this is only a formalization of what Lamenta3 and DGG said before me. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure that the article could be sourced and I think that it most definitely should be. The Dominator (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2008 (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.