Talk:Ashante P.T. Stokes

Less promotion, more facts
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)

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

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)