Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrison W. Noel


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus on deletion, but everybody agrees this article needs editorial improvement. The sources pointed out in the AfD should be added to the article.

There is also some discussion about whether the title should reflect the name of the murderer or the victim. That is out of scope for AfD, and the discussion should be continued on the article talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Harrison W. Noel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing notable about this person. There are tons of murderers in the world and not every one of them are notable. Fails WP:BIO Tinton5 (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INN; fails WP:GNG. Dschslava (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete (or Merge/Redirect). Does not meet WP:CRIMINAL criterion 1. A case might be made that criterion 2 can be met since the subject has some (True Crime) book coverage and things are sufficiently well documented, however a number of sources appear to use the case sequentially/contexually, and there doesn't appear to be a huge amount of sustained coverage or significant attention in its own right so it's . If deleted, it should be without prejudice against a WP:BIO1E redirection to Kidnapping in the United States provided the case is incorporated there. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources meet and surpass the notability standard. Not only did the incident receive widespread coverage at the time it occurred and for many years thereafter, the book coverage was 70 years later. That's as sustained as you can get. The article would benefit from expansion with the ample available sources. Alansohn (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand the stub the very definition of sustained coverage. No bias against renaming for the murder as opposed the murderer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * keep AfD is not an article improvement process; editing is. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * but how does it meet notability? LibStar (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Apart from the two refs on the article, sources are available like here, here, and here. Notability is more than established. Whether the article should be on the murderer or the murder can be determined outside AfD process. 103.6.159.71 (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, not sure why the links are showing up malformed, can someone help? 103.6.159.71 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It didn't like the quotation marks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC).


 * DELETE fails WP:PERP. it's a run of the mill murder. Nothing particularly unique about the victim or the crime. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as this is still questionably improvable and better, nothing else suggesting convincingly better. SwisterTwister   talk  05:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * keep - per sources. per GNGs criteria if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. AfD should not be used on "small articles" or articles that are unlikely to be expanded beyond a stub or similar. But here I actually see potential for a expansion even though that is not a criteria for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.