Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lee Neal

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The result was Withdrawn‎. Nominator withdrew their nom and then draftified it out of process. Whatever occurs, no longer a matter for AfD. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Lee Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No WP:SIGCOV, does not meet WP:PERP. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I begin this? Just reply here? Here's what I know about the case. Colorado newspapers covered it extensively, romanticizing the coverage. Crime fiction shows constantly derived some of their criminal from Neal, and now there's even a book on his case. Mark Pautler's moves to impersonate a defense attorney is heavily recognized across law schools. I put the focal point on Neal because the murders and rape got more coverage, while also alluding to the significance of Pautler's ethics breach and informing how Neal gained reignited attention on crime fiction without openly admitting he was the inspiration ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Colorado, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I watch Darth Stabro's talk, so I saw this AfD. I'm currently inclined towards a weak keep because there was some sustained coverage (if not sustained to the present) in state- and nationwide RS press. I grew up in Colorado hearing about the crime. The cited book doesn't scream RS to me (an author's NYT bestseller status is not a rubber stamp of reliability across all their work). Is there more available on the Paulter angle? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pautler's been covered repeatedly for his ethics violation across multiple newspapers. It's been used, as you can see, as inspiration for crime fiction. Issue is as many reports as there may have been, they have to be archived by now, probably in Internet Archive or Wayback Machine, because a search engine doesn't show much. But he was definitely reported on, to the point law schools conducted theses on his case.

  I figured the driving force for Neal was basically his 2-part Westword coverage. Those lengthy articles don't just get made for the news, I have to agree there must've been at the very least state wide response to his crimes. I can't put his Murderpedia page here. I could maybe find info on him at death penalty info centers and databases, but I don't know how much would be presented. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw: Upon further research, found more significant coverage than previously thought. The article definitely still needs to be pared down from its excessive level of detail, though, and have further in-text citations. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you recommend? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say take a look at the articles of other serial killers to get an idea on what the standard length and formatting would usually look like; just click a few random articles on List of serial killers in the United States. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Does that mean the article ISN'T getting deleted? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've withdrawn the deletion nomination, so someone will come along eventually and close the discussion. As of now, it is no longer up for deletion. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made a significant reduction in the background section. You can evaluate that if you want to. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (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.