Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Leslie Forrest

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Leslie Forrest

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

Non-notable convicted murderer and most worryingly a "suspected serial killer" who will be "eligible for parole in 2014". There ARE some sources, but they all seem to say he is either "suspected of murdering x person" or "he killed x non-notable person in a non-notable way" Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until conviction, this remains a news source and does not meet notability requirements and does not meet point 1 or 2 of crime perpetrator notability requirements. If a sentence is given, Mr. Forrest's name can be added to the list of serial killers. — comment added by Thedropsoffire (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When I started my search, I started suspecting he may never have been properly convicted and sentenced but this news article suggests he was sent to jail where he is now eligible for parole. I'm not having an easy time finding old news articles from that time period so it probably never received any news coverage and that is typical for some court cases. I found another news article here that clarifies the case, he was at first sent to a mental hospital after kidnapping, raping and stabbing a 20-year-old woman and was later sent to prison for a different murder but was never charged for the Jamie Rochelle Grisim murder. Before I found these news links, I found relevant links (although not news articles) here, here and here. However, I later found a news article here. At the end, unfortunately, Warren Leslie Forrest is not notable for any of the crimes. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's some weirdness going on with the news reporting for this guy. No one news story gives the entire time line of everything that went on. I have Murderpedia's account of everything, but considering that this probably wouldn't be a RS to draw from, I'm forced to piece things together from the news story and see how much of it parallels with that site. I am finding coverage, but bits and pieces here and there. I have no doubt that more coverage probably exists, but is off-internet. I'm finding some brief mentions of him in correlation with Bundy, as there's a potential Bundy victim that could possibly be one of Forrest's potential victims, but there's nothing 100% confirming this. So far the woman is believed to be a Bundy victim. I've added the mentions of this into the article, but again- I'm running off of several different reports that seem to say different things. From what I can gather, Forrest was initially brought to trial for the murder of one woman, acquitted due to shenanigans by his lawyer, then brought to trial again and convicted. I wish I could find one source that stated all of this in a linear fashion!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do see where one of the family members of one of the suspected victims has a page detailing various news reports, ([1]) but unless we can trace those back to the papers and verify that the coverage did happen and that the stories read as posted, they're unusable.Tokyogirl79 (talk)
Ah... here are some timelines, if anyone savvier with crime articles wants to try their hand at typing it up. [2] [3]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yay someone taking the time to re-write this. However, I am still uneasy about this, regardless. Sources like this simply say he is suspected, which isn't worth much/right to put in an article. This seems like a good sum-up of all the others. It's got some coverage, but like I said at the beginning, he killed a non-notable person in a non-notable way. I don't see this fulfilling any of the criteria here and am especially worried regarding the point made in the note. The man is a suspected serial killer yes, but he isn't a convicted serial killer and it is both not a criteria for notability, nor is it morally justifiable (although that's neither here nor there), to have an article on someone's suspected criminal activities. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree on that. It's why I'm taking such a long time to debate this. I'm honestly leaning towards delete right now. There might be potential in making an insanely brief note in the Ted Bundy article about the one victim that detectives think might be Forrest's since we have a few Bundy books that mention him, but I'm kind of stretching for even that. What makes all of this so much more frustrating is that the guy himself is rather vague about everything. When asked a bunch of questions including one about the various murders, he just said "yes" and then didn't answer anything more. This will probably be something that would be better served on a private wiki or website rather than Wikipedia, I think. I have no issue if someone wants to userfy it, but if brought back it'll probably need a lot of work and more definitive sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nonnotable convict. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2012 (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.