Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Stokes


 * 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 delete. Notability is not inherited and therefore the consensus is this doesn't meet GNG. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 16:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sean Stokes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete another article that fails our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, with the same response to the exact same delete !votes copy-pasted from similar nominations. WP:GNG is a guideline, and WP:SOLDIER is an essay. I count eight reliable third-party sources, including a book that prominently features the guy; is there some reason this doesn't satisfy WP:V and imply WP:N? jp×g 18:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, we don't see that there are eight RS. I see one or two. Mztourist (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While the headcount is clear, the "delete" opinions merely broadly assert non-notability, without discussing why the sources cited in the article do not establish notability.
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Intothatdarkness 22:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, Fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, Fails WP:SIGCOV. SwashWafer (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello • contribs 18:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nom is off-base. It is fine for it to not meet soldier, if it meets gng. Nom seems not to understand this. Nor the editor whose vote is similarly based on only that criterion. 2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been on WP for one day and yet you feel qualified to come to AFD and criticize other Users' deletes? Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes. 2. Is there a rule against it? 3. In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. 4. WP:SOLDIER is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. 5. Regardless of that non-policy, non-guideline essay, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. 6. GNG, in contrast, is an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard. 7. What is important is the extent to which a comment is based on our guidelines, not how long they have been here or even how many similar comments there are. 8. Your attitude is one that some might consider slightly less than welcoming to editors. Which is not quite what the project strives for. 9. Any further questions? 2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes the obvious assumption is that you are a Sock of a banned User. New Users don't come to AFD and start arguing policy and guidelines. Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. (I'm not, btw). The obvious assumption is that you flout the rule that requires you to AGF. And that you are ignorant of dynamic IP addresses, and how at no instance of the user they are assigned. And, at the risk of saying it, you appear to be the sort of editor who instead of saying "welcome" says .. something hostile. Not perhaps the best look one could aspire to. Anyway - the substance of what I said above stands. You should know the difference between an essay and a guideline. And that GNG is always good enough.--2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How are we to know? Why don't you create an account? I do know the difference between an Essay and a Guideline, as you would have seen by looking above I referred to both SOLDIER and GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep A military historian made him "a prominent figure" in his notable book. He had ample coverage on an episode of a show on the History channel reenacting the historically significant battle he was part of.   D r e a m Focus  05:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is a nice multi-paragraph Newsweek article that goes to GNG that is not yet reflected in the wp article. And there is no indication the above delete voters considered it when voting."Fallujah "Point Man" Earns Silver Star" It, in turn, points to tv station KCRA coverage and Marine Corps Times coverage of the fellow.2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Clear Keep. 1. This need only meet GNG, and as discussed above those votes that were based only on whether it met the essay soldier failed to conduct the right test, and therefore don't count. User:JPxG was right.

2. The a) Newsweek article I link to above devoted to him, and

b) the tv station KCRA coverage linked to in that article (and even excluding c) the Marine Corps Times coverage of the fellow which we know exists because it is quoted from but I cannot see), and

d) this LA Times article, and

e) this San Francisco Chronicle article, and

f) this Gold Country Media article, and

g) this National Review article that has a few paragraphs on him,

taken together amply satisfy GNG hands down. And make me puzzle as to how they were missed by nom. It also raises the question as to whether they were therefore not considered by the above delete voters, who had reason to believe a before search was done by nom. This is not a close call. 2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Wow, that story has to be some of the laziest "journalism" I have ever read. I used to regard Newsweek as a reliable source, but that story comprised of 4 lengthy quotes (2 from a Marine Corps Times story that can't be found and two from a blog) and a tv story definitely makes me question the reliability of their online reporting. Mztourist (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2021 (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.