Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Shipley (Navy SEAL)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Don Shipley (Navy SEAL)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject's claim to fame (though it's hard to tell from this article) is that he has access to a database of Navy SEALs--that is not enough to warrant an article. There's a few news stories out there that mention him, but it's not much. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Shipley is notable and used as an expert source by a number of media outlets. Duffelblog gets it (DotMIL version of the Onion): http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/12/fake-navy-seal-outs-real-navy-seal/ --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 11:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An odd story (or maybe I don't get military humor) from Duffel Blog--is that a reliable source at all? At any rate, it doesn't discuss our subject very much. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an RS at all, Shipley's notability comes from outting poussers and he is very well known in the Naval Specwar community and the military for that. The article just points that out. The joke is that a fake SEAL outted him as a real SEAL, as opposed to Don outting hundreds of fakes. When you have to explain it, it's not as funny. Still he's more notable than the cnuck he shares a name with, tht article hs far less sources than this one and I'll nominate tht one next.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER criteria 9; Shipley is frequently brought on by news networks as a subject matter expert on military special operations, and within the military community (as well as the various military hangers-on communities...) as an authority, not just on special warfare but as one of the few readily available and easily verified source on who is and is not a Navy SEAL. There are at least hundreds, possibly thousands of impostors for every actual SEAL, and Shipley is one of the few sources who can and does confirm who is and is not fraudulently claiming one of his nation's highest honours. Thehumandignity (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Meets WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9; Senior Chief Shipley (Ret.) is a recognized authority on Navy SOCOM. It is to be noted that this Wiki was initiated and edited by Daniel Alan Bernath, a phony Navy SEAL that Mr. Shipley has had the occasion to have had run-ins with in the past. Mr. Bernath also created a web site that he leads the public to believe is owned and operated by Mr. Shipley, . On this site, which according to whois.com is owned by Bernath, Mr Bernath lampoons Mr. Shipley's business enterprise, www.exteremesealexperience.com. This Wiki has had the one and only purpose of spreading lies, slander, and amounts to creating an attack page in violation of Wikimedia policies. --Fakeouter (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Fakeouter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I suppose this is either a keep or another example of military humor. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9; This page was created before the confrontations with Mr. Bernath occurred. Mr. Bernath has since been found to be waging a continuous war of libel against those that have publically called him out, and this page has been included in his spree. It should not be removed simply because one man's angry, immature tantrums lead him to vandalize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.72 (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the second or third time that this is brought up--someone else vandalizing something has nothing to do with the subject's notability. I assure you, I am not a Seal nor have I ever claimed to be one. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is or was under the impression that you were claiming to be a SEAL. The anonymous user's confusion as to what caused the article to be nominated is simply due to timing. Regardless, that confusion does nothing to negate or otherwise characterise his argument; page meets WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9. Thehumandignity (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9;Don Shipley is recognised as an expert by the media and the Special Warfare community. He has been portrayed in the last year on NCIS LA. His youtube videos of Fake SEAL of the Week  are widely viewed in the Military and Veteran communities. Danial A Bernath is pursuing a vendetta against everyone who Call attention to those that Steal Valor. WFWilson (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — WFWilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - if he passes WP:SOLDIER#9 then its only just in my view. Let's break it down - "Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing." I suppose its comes down to "peers". Are the media his peers? Perhaps, perhaps not. Those SEALs who seem confident in his capacity to speak on their behalf (in a round-about kind of way) could be seen as "recognising" his authority as a source, as his peers. Its convoluted, but okay. Authoritative source? His willingness to talk about things other SEALs might otherwise never speak about publicly could be seen that way. Communities like that need spokespeople and SEALs, collectively (the legit ones), seem to be comfortable with him playing that role, even if he "appointed" himself. I'm probably not 100% there, but I'm more there than not.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that his authority largely comes from the Navy trusting him in 1992 to train Navy cadets, and trusting him now with access to the sensitive database of all UDT and SEAL commandos. Thehumandignity (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really work that way - otherwise everyone with Top Secret security clearance would be considered notable.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If everyone with a top secret clearance made use of that clearance by providing authoritative information to the public by request, then yes, they would be. Anyone with Shipley's experience (Almost 20 years as a SEAL and several years as a fleet sailor) would be recognised as an authority on special warfare matters if they chose to put themselves in that situation and got enough exposure. Thehumandignity (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of those are measures of notability here. Experience, access and willingness to function as a spokesperson don't do much to confer notability. The "got enough exposure" part is what counts. People are notable if they have been the subject of "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Failing that, we look at things like WP:SOLDIER. Either way, I agree with you and I think the article should stay. But for me its a matter of technicality.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9;As has been stated earlier, he is widely recognized by peers as a subject matter expert on Naval Special Warfare and other military matters. In addition, the time and effort he spends identifying false claims of being a Navy SEAL deserves consideration.  Since, as a practical matter, he is the point of contact for civilians to be able to get an answer to that question, there is notability and usefulness to there being a Wikipedia article about him.  Ookoshi (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as explained above. Passes WP:SOLDIER Criteria 9. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 11:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject appears to have sufficient coverage per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.