Talk:Ashante P.T. Stokes

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 25 July 2016 by reviewer Zpeopleheart (talk · contribs).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Notice of paid work relating to Wikipedia
I am employed at Serving the Peace where I work with a variety of clients. PT The Gospel Spitter has a relationship with Serving the Peace.

Hamilton ford (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Less promotion, more facts[edit]

It's possible that if you limit this article to the facts that you can verify in reliable sources, that it will be fine. But if you try to go beyond those sources its becomes unverifiable and promotional. I am willing to help cut down the article to the facts so that we can see what is left. As is, it could be a candidate for deletion because of the amount of unreferenced personal material. (See: WP:BLP for why we require strong references on articles for living people.) LaMona (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksHamilton ford (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bouncetv.com/video/?bcpid=4223033138001&bckey=AQ~~,AAABAzMvFAk~,9fz6TXLzn5GUc26v5Arix67q7j0Xnttb&bctid=4823571177001 Go to cast credits at end of video (Saints and Sinners "Pain")Hamilton ford (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The credits on a film is a primary source, and we use secondary sources. The point here is not to prove some facts, but to show that others have found the topic suitably notable and have published information on it. Wikipedia is a gathering of published sources on topics of importance. LaMona (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't fully understand "Reliable Source" from the primary versus secondary source perspective. I truly thought it meant reliability. That explains your recent edit of the Platt System as "non-RS" because they are the professional timer of sports events and therefore a primary source. It had nothing to do with reliability in the strictest sense of meaning. I am understanding the Wikipedia construct more fully. Earlier in the drafting, Wikipedia denied some secondary sources because the links were not trusted (possible viruses, etc). I think that had me interpreting non-RS with being not trusted. Thanks for the clarification.208.61.0.55 (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Hamilton ford (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton ford, there are often multiple policies in play for any given source. One is reliability, but sources must also be third-party and independent. As for the Platt System, it simply wasn't needed. For any given piece of information, you only need one good source. I chose the one that I thought was the best - both independent and reliable. Primary sources are frequently used for awards (e.g. the awards site itself), but in this case his early sports activity is not key to his notability, since you are not claiming that he is notable as an athlete, but as a performer. The main problems you need to overcome at this point are: 1) you have a lot of unreferenced information, things that you know but that cannot be verified in sources, and all of that needs to be removed from the article, and 2) you don't have major movie roles to point to - having uncredited parts, or appearing in films that are not from a significant studio, just don't add up to notability. I'm not sure that this article would pass a deletion challenge for those reasons. LaMona (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]