Pedro Sanchez wrote: That sounds terribly unilateral. AFD would have been more prudent. Altering the title would have been more sensible, given that some were apparently only accused, and never convicted. I don't know how long the list was but being a "list" it should be enough if there are sources on the listed pages themselves. Nobody puts sources on the index or Table of Contents of a book, because the sources would already be at more appropriate places. The "huge" potential for libel is a product of your imagination. I'm not saying that there is none at all, but it is certainly much less than what you imagine. In any event, other ways of fixing the article would also have eliminated that problem. I don't know when the page was started but its talk page has been there four months; there was no urgency. The chronic bad blood in the deletion process is precisely because of people who take drastic and sudden unilateral action when they could have taken the time to think of softer ways of dealing with a problem. It would be a peaceful gesture if you restored the page, and initiated alternative solutions. Ec

Well done. You have improved Wikipedia. Anyone saying that article shouldn't be speedied is just wikilawyering. Try genuine lawyering, which would tell you that such an article is borderline illegal. If that's not a good reason to speedy something, then I don't know what is. In many cases it is fine to essentially use the Wikipedia articles as the sources for the items in the list. In the case of accusing people of killing someone, it is absolutely not.