Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J. Moonen

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. Notability seems to be ensured by ongoing coverage. 08:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrew J. Moonen

Self-nominating my own article that I created for deletion review under BLP1E.

This fellow is notable for one act only; a clear BLP1E. Created when I was stupid and ignorant. Delete. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to shift coverage from this particular person, to covering the event. A small subset in the event coverage would do, I see a bit of undue weight in the context of a bio. This is the application of BLP1E. I'll recommend delete. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at most, this might warrant a sentence or two in another article. It's a war zone killing, the only reason it is notable is because of who this guy's employer was, and he was off-duty at the time. Risker (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge The first Blackwater employee to be ~~individually charged or~~ Congressionally investigated is significant. This is about Blackwater, however. I say it should go in ~~Blackwater_Baghdad_shootings~~ if possible. OptimistBen (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Comment~~ -- Is this really how BLP1E should be interpreted? To consider this a "single event" requires conflating:
1. original off-duty drunken shooting;
2. subsequent failed cover-up effort;
3. extensive press coverage and discussion;
4. earned mention in the congressional record;

Spin-doctors seem to have made a considerable effort to suppress mention of this incident. I am concerned that if we deleted this article we would give the impression that the wikipedia was in cahoots with the spin-doctors -- and not a neutral resource. Geo Swan (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is under the name of the individual, not the event. And the event, though it created a short-term tempest in a teapot, isn't really all that notable. Gazillions of things make it into the congressional record, and most of them are unimportant, or they are the news story of the day and quickly forgotten. Is it worth a mention in an article related to Blackwater and its work in Iraq? Probably, it deserves a sentence or two. One could say that spin doctors are also making a concerted effort to make a big deal of it. As best I can tell, this guy hasn't been charged criminally; the article is the excess here. Risker (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spin doctors? NonvocalScream (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree and changed my vote to a "weak merge", but think he should be noted on some page related to the Iraq occupation. Ultimately, however, I guess I don't mind that much either way. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 02:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Geo Swan - don't delete. It is important that this stuff is out in the open. - Ailbhe Darcy

keep I don't have any objection for now with us writing an article that focuses on the even instead of the person, but that's an editorial decision more than a content decision. Also as Geo describes there wasn't a single event but a set of ongoing matters and is apparently still growing. Also, as I've pointed out before once a certain amount of coverage occurs in international news sources the notion that Wikipedia is doing any harm is very hard to support. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant incident in a continuing conflict. "One event" implies no importance besides the immediate effect, and this is hardly the case. There appears to have been continuing international coverage, which is not surprising, for it is seem as emblematic of the US role in the war and its effect on the civilians. DGG (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per ongoing coverage. It isn't just one event; sure, it may have started with one event, but it has blossomed into other events as well. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Blackwater Baghdad shootings. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Blackwater Baghdad shootings. It doesn't fit in perfectly there at the moment, but the merge-to article may be broadened to seamlessly include this. BWH76 (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2008 (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.