Deletion of Glen Doherty

Comment: per nom. No branch of the armed forces, whether special forces, catering corps, or vehicle-maintenance technicians, are more notable than any others, according to our guidelines. Bronze Stars are not notable; we routinely delete holders of the Silver Star because only MoH winners are intrinsicly deemed notable. Doherty's worthiness in terms of writing a book does not really pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: or '''Merge/Redirect''' - Per  and . Sources have covered more than just his death, but it's pretty clear that none of the coverage would have occurred had he not died. I don't mean to sound cold, I just mean it's not like there was a ''USA Today'' article lined up for him on that day otherwise, for example. Perhaps he deserves a mention in the event article or something, but not his own
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: Sean Smith (diplomat), as per Falcon8765 above:  does not apply in his case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per Falcon and Izak.  Meets  and is well referenced and organized
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Sean Smith (diplomat).  does not apply, specifically "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.". Multiple sources are given that refer to him outside the context of a single event, and give reference to his prominence in the online community. Additionally, he doesn't meet the definition of a low profile individual as it is defined at Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual. Membership of the Council of Stellar Management and a prominent role in the Somethingawful forums are both well documented, and response of both communties to his death lends evidence to his notability. This is exactly the sort of article you'd expect to read on an encyclopedia, and the article has already been viewed 59,000 times. Additionally, the Doherty should be kept as well. The combination of being a Bronze Star recipient, authoring a book, and dying in the manner in which he did combines to confer notability. Deleting a well-sourced, valid, and widely reported article on the subject of a major event because of bureaucracy is stupid
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: WP:ONEEVENT concerns reliable sources covering the person only in the context of a single event. Here, the event promoted reliable sources to write about their lives, not only their placement in the event, but outside the event - from birth though death in significant detail. WP:ONEEVENT does not apply and arguments asserting it does are focusing on the motivation behind reliable sources reason for writing what they wrote, which is not part of WP:ONEEVENT. While it may be true that none of the coverage would have occurred had they not died the way they did, we all agree that the coverage did occur and that is where Wikipedia steps in to determine whether there is enough of such coverage for a stand alone article on the topic. Also, if the topics satify Wikipedia's notability requirements, then  indicate that the topic satisfies . As for whether these three are more significant than other who died, that is a  argument. As for the topics having to meet some threshold of importance or significance, that was decided by the editors of the reliable sources in favor of the topics being important when the editors chose to publish the information on the topics in their reliable source. While being a Navy SEAL, writing a book, or earning a Bronze Star may not make the people stand out, the reliable sources writing about their lives show how important and significant these topics are despite the lack of position of or status reached by the people behind these biographical topics. The topics meet . Keep all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:WAX||WP:GNG)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: because there is incredible interest in this episode and in the ''lives'' lost. These articles are all well-researched and to the point and meet ''all'' the criteria of , , , . Each of these killed individuals were personalities in their own right, that worked undercover, but have now been thrust into the intense scrutiny of the media and online discussions, particularly since the circumstances surrounding their deaths are a source of debate and controversy. See also the template {{tl|2012 diplomatic missions attacks}} that lays out the importance of all the parts in understanding the "whole" of this complex picture, including all four Americans killed in the attack and the roles they played while in Libya. These were not "doormen" -- they were extraordinarily skilled and highly experienced fighting professionals
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NOTABLE||WP:BIO)

Comment: to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. Although the subjects meet  & , the subjects also fail all but #5 in , and also fall under  & . Therefore, the content can be summarized, and a redirect to an appropriate section in the target article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ANYBIO||WP:SOLDIER||WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTMEMORIAL)

Comment: to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi per 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Sean Smith; ''not sure about'' the other two.  Smith appears to have been a 'name' in the gaming world, even before this incident, so he passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)