Deletion of List of Craigslist killers

Comment: 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
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC)

Comment: This term appears 1,700+ times in http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22craigslist%20killer%22&sa=N&safe=off&tab=wn&um=1 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC)

Comment: these handful of events are already covered in Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users, which is an appropriate sub-article of main article Craigslist.  This list of "craigslist killers", along with internet killer, is |novel synthesis and |original research as noted by several other editors above.  Wikipedia should not be coining terms and defining phenomena
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:OR)

Comment: per  items 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC)