Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George E. Stephens


 * 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. Rewriting the article can occur outside of the AfD process if that is what is eventually done; but there's a significant consensus that article should be kept in one form or another. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

George E. Stephens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and fails WP:NSOLDIER. Did not play a critical role in a battle/campaign, and Lieutenant is not a high enough rank. Gets a good writeup in, but we need more than that. is a letter written by the subject, so it is not independent. The subject's letters were collected into a book and then lightly edited over 100 years after the subject's death. Given that the bulk of the book was written by Stephens himself, it is also not independent from Stephens. I can find several reviews of the book, and I think the book probably passes WP:NBOOK, but the book's article does not yet exist, otherwise that would make a good redirection point. I don't think he quite passes WP:NAUTHOR though. Looks like a great guy, but I don't think he's notable. Hog Farm (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER alone, but I'd very much like to see an article on his book that this could be redirected to, I found several reviews of it. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I would argue that although Stephens might not quite meet the standard Wikipedia criteria for notability as a soldier or a person in general, by having soldiered well in the first black union regiment, and by having provided a record of life in that regiment through his letters, in these times we might partially, in the words of | There is a difference between statues of Abraham Lincoln and Confederate generals, “… giv[e] black Union soldiers the prominence they have been denied.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kab42edit (talk • contribs) 01:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or rewrite to be about the book, which is likely notable (see ). WP:SOLDIER is not relevant, as his notability does not derive from rank. Rather, the fact that somebody considered this soldier's letters to be worth editing and publishing makes him notable.  Sandstein   18:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:SOLDIER is not the appropriate guideline as the subject's fame arises from their writing, not their fighting, and so they pass WP:JOURNALIST. In any case, there's extensive and detailed biographical coverage in books such as A Voice of Thunder and Now or Never! and so the subject easily passes WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or rewrite to be about the book. I'm sure that the book is notable based upon the reviews, and the amazon book description describes him as " the most important African-American war correspondent of his era" and says it has a biographical introduction. I'd agree with Sandstein that the fact someone published the letters and wrote a biographical profile conveys some type of notability to him (or the book). I don't see the coverage mentioned by Andrew in Now or Never!. (Changed vote to keep after reading 's rationale) . Eddie891 Talk Work 13:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's some details of Now or Never! which is a "riveting dual biography". Notice that the other subject is James Henry Gooding – for which we have another article.  That person had the rank of Corporal but that doesn't matter because, again, their notability arises from their writing, not their fighting. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Now or Never! appears to draw most of its content on Stephens from Yacovone's biography on him, so I don't know if it contstitutes a second source per se. These reviews ( may also be useful in determining his notability, but they have the same problem. I only briefly skimmed Yacovone's biography of Stephens in Voice of Thunder, but between it and (potentially) the other sources, I think we have enough to support an article on Stephens. (I found some trivial mentions which could also be used in | this book, from over a century before Voice of Thunder, but I don't think it's substantial enough to count as a separate source.) Moreover, I think he is of enough historical interest to merit an article, even if only a small one (Now or Never! and the book reviews probably establish that, even if they don't count as independent per se). 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is on the borderline of passing NAUTHOR, and we know we have plenty of bias against African-Americans, particularly in finding sources. That's good enough to bump it across the line in my book.Jacona (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2020 (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.