Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional Serial Killers

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 Draftify. There seems to be a general feeling that the subject is notable, but even several "keep" !votes signal problems with the article as it stands. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Serial Killers

[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)

I hate to nominate non-promotional articles by new editors for deletion, especially when the subject matter has merit. I'm sure there's a lot written about fictional serial killers and about serial killers in pop culture. I believe Serial_killer#In_popular_culture is really lacking. However, this article reads like an essay with a lot of original research WP:OR. The sources don't really verify what is being claimed. Half of them don't even mention the term serial killer. Mooonswimmer 01:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable. AfD is not article cleanup. Do the work please, instead of going to AfD. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article has merit and could even rise to GA status. However as this has been brought to AfD, I'm hoping for the WP:HEY effect. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 08:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable topic and an article that can be expanded. Should be RM'd to "Serial killers in fiction" as a more general topic name, however. 193.37.240.168 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is clearly notable. I do agree with the idea to rename the article to "Serial killers in fiction". Maybe someone will propose it or be bold once the AfD is over. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Regardless of the fact that the subject is potentially notable, the current article was clearly not ready for main space because, as pointed out in the nomination, it is pretty much entirely comprised of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH right now. The sources very often do not support the statements in the article (for example, there is a paragraph on Norman Bates that makes the claim that "therefore Psycho is currently considered by experts in the field as the pioneer in the use of a serial killer in the world of cinema", a claim that is not backed up at all by either of the citations being used to support it), some of the sources do not actually refer to the idea of serial killers in their discussion making their use in this article complete original research, and only one of them (the crimeculture site, which given their "About Us" description, I have doubts on whether this would count as a reliable source) actually seems to discuss the overall topic that this article is about. The topic may have merit, but until those issues are resolved, it simply should not be in the article main space. It should be sent back to draft to be worked on until these WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues are resolved, and better citations from reliable sources are added that are actually on the topic and back up the statements in the article. The above Keep votes because the topic is "clearly notable" are completely ignoring the fact that notability concerns are not why this article was nominated to begin with. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify was what I was initially going with, and I guess I should have gone with it over deletion. I'm considering withdrawing my nomination, draftifying the article, and giving the creator a few tips and reliable sources to start with.

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I have just gotten more active in AfD recently and I am still learning: is nominating a potentionally notable or clearly notable article for deletion ever justified? In this case, everything from the article's title to the sources cited is problematic and must be reworked. It does not belong in the article mainspace. There is barely anything salvageable. Should draftifying these articles always be my first recourse, or is AfD ever warranted? Mooonswimmer 16:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is probably the most common reason cited, notability concerns are only one potential reason for bringing an article to AFD (you can see WP:DEL-REASON for examples of other reasons), so yes, it is justified to bring an article on a potentially notable subject to AFD if there are other grounds for deletion. For something like this, however, where it is a clearly good faith effort to create an article on a notable topic that just is not ready, incubation would be a more appropriate alternative then sending to AFD so quickly after its creation. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there may be something notable on this out there, this is a poorly written piece of WP:OR that meris only WP:TNTing into oblivion, the sooner, the better. This is also inferior to Serial_killer#In_popular_culture, which at leasts cites some academic sources, unless the piece here, which cites, well, Screenrant and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It should be moved to Serial killers in fiction, but it's in no way ready for primetime. It has potential, but clearly isn't there yet and is unencyclopedic in its current state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I believe there is a notable and quality article to be written here. But this is not it. Much of this is WP:OR and unreliable. It needs a severe rewrite with more careful use of sources. WP:TNT applies and a redirect would be another way to allow editors to re-work this over time. Archrogue (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep and Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree with the above comments. There's potential for an article here on a notable topic, but it just needs improvement at the moment. At the very least, this could be a listicle. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a notable topic but it needs major rearangement and to be moved to a better name, something like Serial killers in fiction.★Trekker (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to note that this topic (focusing pretty much only on slasher cruft and kill counts) was already deleted in 2021 when it was under the name Film serial killers.★Trekker (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The text is reasonably encyclopaediacally written and it has low-quality but passable citations. Sure, there are some criticisms. The table has unclear inclusion criteria, is uncited, and could be iniscriminate. The sourcing could be improved with something more academic such as [1] or [2]. But these are not fatal objections – AFD is not cleanup. SpinningSpark 15:32, 16 February 2023 (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.