Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Mikel


 * 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   Redirect to Fort Campbell. If anything is worth inclduding there, it can be. Black Kite 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Mikel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a living person notable for only one event (a crime) whose name seems to be largely forgotten just 2-1/2 years after the event. Evidence that his 15 minutes of infamy are over: (1) sources cited in the article were online news articles, most of which are now broken citations; (2) article focuses on the criminal charges and was never updated to report on his conviction and sentence (indicating that the contributors forgot about him); and (3) Google hits on his name are sparse. The event can be amply covered in Fort Campbell (the location of the crime). Orlady (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, a lot of people are notable for only one event - the BIO1E ruling is meant to prevent articles being written about the guy who stalked Lindsay Lohan, the guy who saved Madonna from oncoming traffic - not to prevent articles being written about US Officers charged with 42 counts of attempted murder. I don't know what you think "Sources are online news articles" proves, since they include at least two paper-and-ink newspapers including the USA Today - most articles use online sources, because they're easier to verify. I also find a thousand independent articles on him on Google - after removing any Wikipedia mirrors. I also see the House Judiciary Committee considers him notable enough to put on a CV - "he prosecuted 40 criminal cases, including US. v. Mikel, which drew national interest after Pvt. Mikel attempted to murder his platoon sergeant and fired upon his unit's early morning formation". Merging it into Fort Campbell would result in serious UNDUEWEIGHT concerns as well. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on your concerns about WP:UNDUE when the incident is included in Fort Campbell? Note that the incident is discussed in Fort Campbell (and has been documented in that article since you first added it in February 2006). --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be like merging Charles Whitman with University of Texas, standard organisations/facilities like Fort Campbell or University of Texas do not want their Wiki article to be focused chiefly on crime sprees that have occurred on their grounds - they want them forked into separate articles, and it's a fair issue. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that as an argument to make an article on the incident itself, not a bio of Mikel. Where did he go to high school? What were his hobbies? Where did he go to basic training? Its inescapable that this is a BLP1E case, and you can't get that other info without OR, nor should we have to do, because from a biographical standpoint, there is no need. The incident itself is already stubbed into the Ft. Campbell article. MrPrada (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Nominator's rationale that notability has diminished is not grounds for deletion per WP:NTEMP. I would invite other to evaluate this AfD by the proposed guideline Notability (criminal acts).  Once I have time to sit down and read through the article, I'll put a more substantive comment here. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record, I am not suggesting that the criminal act should not be documented in Wikipedia. My rationale is that the person responsible for the criminal act is not sufficiently notable (as revealed by the rapid diminution of interest over time) to be the subject of a stand-alone article. For the record, I get 61 ghits on "Nicholas Mikel", of which at least 20 are other people with similar names, and many more appear to be hits on Wikipedia or sites that use Wikipedia content. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Try "Mikel + 'Fort Campbell'", all the hits are related to this Mikel, and you'll find there are nearly a thousand all related to the attemptd mass murder. Sometimes he's "Pte. Mikel", othertimes he's "Pte N. Mikel", "N. Mikel", "Pvt Mikel" or any number of other variations. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hint. I tried "+Mikel +'Fort Campbell'" and I saw some new hits about this case (particularly items about the attorney), but many of the ghits were about other people named "Mikel" (Mike Mikel, Mikel Fagan, Mikel McMuren, Mikel Petty, Tabitha Mikel, Shannon Mikel, Emma Mikel, Jon-Mikel Gates, etc.). --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   —Orlady (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Orlady (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete from a MILHIST perspective the notablity would be established one of three ways: recieving a flag rank (ie: Chester Nimitz), recieving one the highest honors one's country may bestow (Gary Gordon), or being involved in an international scandal (Lynndie England), and in the case of this article I see no criteria for any of the three notabilities here to fore mentioned. To me, that suggests that we can afford to delete this article. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per rationales of WP:N/CA (not an official guideline yet). The subject of the article is infamous only for the crime itself.  Whilst the rationale of the nom in regards to temporary notability has passed, I see nothing that suggests further substantial analysis of the subject took place a long time after the incident in order for it to qualify for some for of historical notability.  Under such circumstances and with little material of substance sufficient for an article based solely on the crime itself, I suggest that the material included in the Fort Campbell article is sufficient for coverage of this event. Fritzpoll (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree with inclusion of the material to Fort Cambell. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Fort Campbell article perhaps? I'm still mulling this one over.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per BLP1E. Could be a stub of the overall Fort Campbell article, but no need for an Independent article. There is nothing to this biography except the one event, and I don't think you're going to find verified reliable sources to flesh it out otherwise. MrPrada (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I usually defend articles on crimes, but this one is really trivial. I'm not at all we'll ever agree on N/CA, but this is clearly beneath encyclopedic importance. DGG (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect and include to Fort Campbell. Alone, it fails notability policies.  However, I believe that the information is worth inclusion into the Campbell Fort article. Razorflame 21:36, 24 May 2008 (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.