Why are we keeping a [kill-count]?

Question

Do we really need kill-count? Tag scoring checklist stolen from this post:

1. Does it make sense to be an "expert* in kill-count"?
   No, because questions with this tag could belong to any fictional universe and you cannot possibly know them all. -1
2. Does it make sense for a question to be tagged only with kill-count"?
   No, it would need to have a franchise or work tag at a minimum. -1
3. Does kill-count have a single, universally-unambiguous meaning?
   Yes. +2
4. Is kill-count likely to be used correctly just based on it's name?
   Yes. +2
5. Are there "enough" (> 15) but not "too many" (> 10% site-wide) questions that qualify for kill-count?
   Maybe, there are nine now and I could imagine that a few more might exist but not have the tag (or be asked in the future). >10% site-wide is never going to happen. +1
6. Are people like to use kill-count to find questions to answer?
   Maybe, some people might like doing the kind of math and trivia this involves. +1
7. Are there likely some users (be objective!) who will favorite or ignore kill-count?
   Maybe, but I doubt it. +1
8. Could kill-count be reasonably used to feed questions to a specialized chat room?
   I can't imagine why you'd want to do that, and the question frequency is low enough that there really wouldn't be much point. -1
9. Can kill-count be used to search for questions (for any reason) in a way that keyword searching cannot accomplish?
   No. These questions all involve one of the words "died," "killed," and "body." You can just keyword search on terms such as those. -1

Final score: +3, which is well into the "terrible" zone:

Very roughly speaking, tags that score > 12 are "good" tags, tags that score < 8 are "terrible" tags, others are likely good but may need some clarification/renaming/etc.

I don't have the rep to mass edit these nine questions without going through approval, but I would suggest that someone with the rep do so, since this looks like a fairly open-and-shut case to me.

Answer 1

Your criteria (which were originally proposed here having been copied over from Chemistry SE) were popular here on SFF meta for a while, but gradually decreased in popularity, until eventually the question was posed of whether they were actually useful and met with a resounding no.

If you really want a tag-scoring system, there's a relatively short and easy one on main meta:

1. Does it describe the contents of the questions to which it is applied?

2. Is the concept described even on-topic for the site?

3. Does the tag add any meaningful information to the post?

4. Does it mean the same thing in all common contexts?

In this case, kill-count would get the answer yes for all four of these questions. Another important question is "does the tag aid in searchability?", to which again the answer is yes, since it's hard to search for questions about kill counts using just the search facility: the question "how many X did Y kill in Z?" can come in many different forms, and if one's interested in finding all such questions, having a special tag for them would be very useful.

Admittedly, if someone was proposing the creation of this tag, I would probably be against it. But now that it exists, and seems to satisfy a bunch of sensible criteria for tags, it's certainly not worth the trouble of burninating it. To quote the top-voted answer here:

Tagging was never meant to be this much of a pain in the ass to make decisions on. Unless a tag is atrociously bad or almost unused, it may as well stay.

[...]

Any tag we prevent from being made or burninate actually destroys our ability to track the actual usage of tags, to develop policies based around what our users naturally feel is an effective way to tag questions.

TL;DR: leave it alone.

Answer 2

Leave kill-count alone.

---

For my money, the most important of the criteria you've mentioned is #6, are people likely to use it to search for questions about kill-counts? Since the answer is a very firm "yes", that means that it's worthwhile keeping it.

---

I think we need a new criteria for retagging.

1) Is it possible that removing this tag could harm, rather than improve the ability of users to find questions that interest them? Y/N

2) Will retagging a bunch of these questions bugger up the front page for a day? Y/Y

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, leave the tag alone.