Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of serial rapists by number of victims

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. A rename to List of serial rapists seems likely to follow, but I leave article renaming to the normal editorial processes for that. RL0919 (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of serial rapists by number of victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:LISTN, evidence of list topic notablity has not been demonstrated. Policy requires the topic to have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that vein of argument then, I urge you to demonstrate how the list contains "recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes". SteveStrummer (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It helps with navigation by listing all those who are called serial rapists in their own articles. Dream Focus 19:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That navigation would be better suited to a category. As you yourself stated above, this list is just a list of those serial rapists who have Wikipedia articles. It's not a definitive list, but the title presents it as if it were, which would be misleading to any researchers. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2019 (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.