Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Warren

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Warren[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This article was prodded due to concerns about unsourced material in a BLP. I addressed those concerns, cleaning up and sourcing the article. But after reflection, I'm concerned that this might be a case of being notable for only one event (accusations of rape). He is also an author, but apparently a non-notable one. Finding references has been hard, with a lot of Gsearch noise due to other people with the same name. I am neutral on the outcome of this AfD. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now since I have the feeling that this might not be a tiny little event. Then again, of course this article comes too soon, but it's here now. But "Andrew Warren" on Google News gives lots of relevant hits. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article focuses too much on giving a negative event WP:UNDUE weight. _ Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While not as notable as Doc Hammer he is certainly more notable than Aubree Miller.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolon (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Multiple independent reliable sources cover notability. Thought I can see where the nominator is coming from with his only being covered for one event, I think that coverage of his book & promotion make him noteworthy for the time being. RMJ (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I would be open to revisiting this deletion discussion after a year or so has elapsed. I want to note also that no pages link to Andrew Warren in the context of prose. Is their a context to his being accused of rape? Can this context appear as prose somewhere, other than this just being an isolated fact? If so, I think that would make him more notable. If not, I think that would be an argument for deletion. Cazort (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a WP:BLP issue with the accusations given undue weight (of course, if there turn out to be an indictment or official action by either the United States or Algerian government, then it would necessitate an article). What's notable about the book? It seems to be trivially mentioned. So the question is, why is this individual included in Wikipedia? It's clearly not because he a CIA station chief; there is not enough mention of his book to establish him under WP:AUTHOR; so, the push must be due to the accusation. It's not enough... yet. B.Wind (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - How many station chiefs of CIA offices are (a) converts to Islam, and (b) outed? Bearian (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2009 (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.