Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Andrew Kissel

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 09:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Andrew Kissel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:EVENT and WP:VICTIM. just another murder. and theere is only speculation not fact about motive for murder. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a one time news event. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick search of Andrew Kissel under general and news turns up many articles (also book treatment in a book devoted to the family murders--A Family Cursed: The Kissell Dynasty, a Gilded Fortune, and Two Brutal Murders, and another book treatment in a book about the family--Never Enough: A Shocking True Story of Greed, Jealousy and Murder), including many devoted to his murder (one event) and the related trial (another event), spanning a few years. Where we have that, it generally is seen as passing GNG -- it is the coverage, not the motive, that qualifies it. Events that have sufficient coverage of this nature and pass gng are generally fine, even if one event. RS media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets our guidelines. Is there another reason you have in mind?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

almost all murders will pass WP:GNG as media coverage is usually intense around period of murder and conviction of murderer. if we apply that rule, almost every murder will get a WP article. needs to more WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the above links? Read the articles and books devoted to not only the murder, but the trial? Noted that the articles and books were written over the course of a number of years? I'm not sure that, as you suggest, most murders have books about them, and hundreds (thousands?) of articles that are about them in their entirety or refer to them.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Epeefleche has drawn our attention to two books on the individual and his murder. Hence, and also bearing in mind the references in the article,
WP:GNG is met. This is merely a guideline and so only suggests we might presume that the topic warrants a separate article. In this case I think an article is appropriate. Thincat (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Two books dealing with the event in a substantial way. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per
WP:GNG (the two books on the topic). MrScorch6200 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Per the above comments, above keeps, myriad sources from many years, the depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity, and reliability of the coverage, and gng, all of which reflect that this should be kept per
wp:event. Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just another irresponsible and unjustifiable deletion nomination for an article backed by multiple reliable sources for an enduring event that has been the subject of multiple published works. Did the nominator bother to review the subject or is this just another knee-jerk deletion nomination? Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. I found this nomination, by an editor with over 30,000 edits and ample experience, to be quite surprising as well. If one looks at the sources, and at the actual guidelines, it's not even a close question.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 07:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of massive news coverage for an extended period of time. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.