Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stanton (journalist)

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. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Stanton (journalist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References do not establish notability of subject, lack of secondary sources on the individual. Broadly a collection of this individual's largely fringe viewpoints and circular sourcing to Stanton's own articles and op-eds. Falls into Wikipedia:No original research. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person who created this article in 2008 just edited this article and then left Wikipedia permanently and the sources don't really establish this journalists notability. The first point is not a good sign. --Artene50 (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone starts an article and then stops editing has no bearing on the notability issue. Perhaps they died. ~~The link provided gives no useful information about the editor or John Stanton~~. – S. Rich (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Noting that the comment no longer applies as Artene has corrected it to a user page. 18:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd have to put a bit more work into this but I think there's probably enough out there to establish that John Stanton is an independent investigative journalist and therefore to at least keep this as a stub, which states just that and then lists some of his works. See for example: this this, this, this and this (paragraph on Stanton's work) Given his prominence in the debates about Human Terrain System I think this would be helpful for Wikipedia readers. Lorelei (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, I've called up these sources with only around 20 minutes searching. Working from my memory of sifting through the MASSES (there is literally masses of the stuff!) of material pertaining to HTS while editing the article, there are quite a few more out there. Lorelei (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see that he is a notable journalist, and as a seasoned editor in Philadelphia I can improve the article and add references. Give Lorelei and myself time to do the job.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Declaring a 'conflict' of interest, I had some involvement with Human Terrain Systems a few years ago. (I never had any connection with Stanton.) Based on my own experience (for what it is worth) I can say his articles were significant in their influence on the program. The sources in the article reflect this. And without looking at other books about HTS and military anthropology, I suspect his work has been cited by others. – S. Rich (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Added note: Stanton is brought up several times in Christopher Lamb's book Human Terrain Teams ISBN 978-0988864207 published by The Institute of World Politics. – S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2014 (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.