Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Paronto


 * 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) -- HindWikiConnect 00:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Kris Paronto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All of the sources in the page are promotional, and it fails WP:NSOLDIER and WP:GNG. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep He is the co-author of a bestselling book and a main subject of of a wide release movie. Sources include Herald-Mail Media and USA Today affiliate Greatt Falls Tribune  which are two reliable sources covering him that are not promotional and Paronto is the subject which demonstrates WP:GNG.  A simple google search shows many sources and hits.  Certainly he Played an important role in a significant military event covered in multiple, reliable sources and easily satisfies that criteria listed in WP:NSOLDIER.  --DHeyward (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like he's got a lot of indepth coverage over multiple years that hasn't been added to the article. Omahan on Benghazi team is happy with '13 Hours' film, which is based on book he co-wrote 2016; Omahan in Benghazi in 2012 faults CIA station chief’s stand-down order 2014; Omaha native reflects on Benghazi attack 2015; Talk by Benghazi veteran stirs social media protest 2017; Paronto shares stories of Benghazi, life battles 2015. A lot is from Omaha, Nebraska but Victoria Advocate is in Texas, and Pilot Tribune and Enterprise is in Pennsylvania, and The Herald-Mail (DHeywards mentions above) is Pennsylvania/Maryland/West Virginia, none of which is anywhere near Omaha, so that meets WP:GNG with no problem. Murphy's Law: Just today, I add an image to the article as proof that can be done without liking or disliking or even knowing anything about the guy; and the very next edit the article gets nominated for deletion, so now I have to research something about him. Sigh. :-P --GRuban (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DHeyward (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per and Captain Raju.  Absolutely meets WP:GNG.  After it closes, nominator might need to be trouted for this AfD. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  Delete weak keep revised 18:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC) -- "Notable" for only one thing. Can be mentioned in other places where and if he is significant factor.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No harm done keeping this a while and doing another AfD after awhile if it doesn't get any better. I don't consider the personal history of his family, etc. or other currently cited material sufficient for long term notability. SPECIFICO  talk  18:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SPECIFICO Many of our subjects derive their notability from one thing or event. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep played a prominent role in the Benghazi event and subsequent books and film. Passes GNG with ease. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes but WP:ONEEVENT too. SPECIFICO  talk  21:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That coverage is awfully thin though. A note in the family section of a local paper, another promotional little bit basically announcing him as a speaker in a slightly bigger local paper, a few paragraphs in the IJR piece, and a book review. No, I don't think this is a lot. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Er - sorry? The sources I posted are, respectively, 20 paragraphs, 70 paragraphs, 17 paragraphs, 40 paragraphs, 40 paragraphs. The 2 in DHeyward's post are 40 paragraphs and 10 paragraphs. Now they're newspaper paragraphs, not Russian novel paragraphs, but still, most of these are non-trivial indepth sources. And yes, they are local papers, but they are local papers unrelated to each other, and local to half a dozen states spread over half the country, and over 4 years. --GRuban (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Being covered in depth over numerous WP:RS, this subject easily passes WP:GNG. The article should be retained on wikipedia and expanded not deleted. Lacypaperclip (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep nominator didn't show how the subject failed GNG. As a co-author of best selling book and author another of another book recognized by independent sourcees does surely meet GNG. The reference in the article alone do show this. In addition, the article is now greatly improved from this version with 4 refs when nominating to now current version with additional content and improved sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But the references are either promotional appearances related to his speaking tour or right-wing websites. Can you cite any mainstream news or analysis sources?  SPECIFICO  talk  17:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * New York Times has 3 articles., and here's one of a few CNN refs and here's one of a dozen or USAToday pieces. They show notability over many years and different topics.  Here, for example, is his second book unrelated to the Benghazi attack being reviewed in USAToday as a best-seller.  National coverage in addition to local coverage over multiple topics.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I come to respond with the sources, but there's already similar and better response. Pinging, in case not watching. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to meet GNG and possibly AUTHOR - probably due to his involvement in an incident that was a political scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Post-Benghazi activities appear to have enough coverage to overcome BLP1E. ValarianB (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (c · m)  04:29, 12 December 2017 (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.