Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSG Darrell Griffin, Jr.

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SSG Darrell Griffin, Jr.[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a memorial site. (speedy removed by an IP, only edit by this IP) Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The story here is the book, which may be notable. Delete and start over. Hairhorn (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The article is not appropriate in its current form but there seems to be lots of coverage of the sergeant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddy1981 (talk • contribs)

Knocked it back to a stub. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Subject of the article has significant news coverage by reliable news sources. However, the article is in serious need of re-write. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will continue to crop up. I noted this when I viewed the page during normal new page patrolling. Soldiers that dies in newer conflicts will garner more an more news coverage due to global coverage of these events now. We may need to work on WP:NOTE to take this into account. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article violates several guidelines or policies. It is a memorial, it promotes a book written by the article author, and it is the essence of conflict of interest. It has no references and fails notability. Edison (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur that WP:NOTE should be revised, but that isn't the reason for my vote. The article in its current form is an odd mix of an advertisement and a memorial, neither belong here. If the book becomes notable, it can be added later, and same with the subject. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Edison Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be stubbed as article is currently non-encyclopedic. But there are quite enough sources on Griffin and the book to support an article.John Z (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I respect his sacrifice and his fathers desire to finish the book, but it fails the criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix up. Notability established by existence of reliable sources with substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reliable sources listed st http://www.strykernews.com/archives/2007/03/23/sfc_darrell_r_g.html. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the moment it is difficult to tell if the subject is notable or not, based on the lack of biographical information in the ariticle. There do seem to be a number of sources (at least on the Stryker news page, however, they all seem only to relate to the subject's death (some of them also don't work, or seem more like blogs, than reliable sources). Is there anything relating to the specifics of the subject's service? For example, details of his military career: any decorations that he received, notable actions he was involved in, etc. Adding these in would certainly help in determining whether the subject was notable (in terms of Wikipedia's notability criteria). — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of links are now dead -- I would suggest US News & World Report and Washington Times stories as useful sources. The DoD report is nothing much and some are personal websites of no value for determining notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have spent the past few days since my comment above trying to find information on this subject to prove notability. I have found some information, but nothing that indicates to me that the subject meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. The staff sergeant's loss is tragic and believe me, as a soldier myself I sympathise, however based on the few sources I've found he is no more notable than the 4,000 + other Americans killed in the war so far. Perhaps the article could be userfied, and the subject's father could work on it offline for a bit. If more information could be found and added, e.g. what decorations did the subject receive, notable actions he was involved in, etc (with links to verifiable sources), then perhaps it could be added to the mainspace again some time in the future. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. PK T(alk) 19:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.