Deletion of Matthew Fenton

Comment: fails  (not a memorial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per the non-trivial coverage he has received in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. #MEMORIAL|Wikipedia is not a memorial applies only to articles that don't meet our notability guidelines. Otherwise, we'd have no articles on any deceased persons. Most of the arguments to "delete" above promote a subjective/personal standard of notability that is not supported by Wikipedia:Notability (people
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a memorial.  That being said, perhaps the Keep !voters could tell us what elements of  this fellow fulfilled?  Sorry if this sounds callous, but Sgt. Fenton was a young clerk with a high school education, no valor awards and a sparse official bio released by the military only after his death and containing little more than vitae curriculae.  The article scarcely even asserts notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Obviously a hero, as is anyone else who fights for their country. However, he fails the |notability requirements. Also, #MEMORIAL|Wikipedia is not a memorial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:NOT)

Comment: Is the subject of multiple published workd from reliable sources. I see the |Wikipedia is not a memorial as if a person's death negate's our primary inclusion standards.  This isn't an article about an editor's grandpa who otherwise would not meet WP:BIO
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: unfortunately, the problem with covering deaths is that it will lead to a systematic problem. Let's take the current war in Iraq. It's 3000 or so people now for Coalition forces. That's not bad, is it? But wait, what about Iraqi deaths? That would add 50,000 people. Most of whom won't receive coverage in US sources, and possibly not Iraqi sources, but some will. And then we have to think about other wars. There are newspaper articles covering deaths at least a hundred years back in some cases. Individual coverage of deaths in war is almost the de-facto now, is it really any different than any accident or crime victim's death? Not really no. This is a case where it's important to recognize that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy(see , it's not about rules, but about reasoning. And mine tells me that absent some other notability (like a television movie, or a book written about them), it's not going to work to cover deaths in war. Not here anyway, if some other site wants to do it, more power to them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BURO)

Comment: WP is not a memorial, and subject is |non-notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a memorial.  It's tragic but dying in a war is not unusual.  There is no evidence presented that this person meets any of our established inclusion criteria.  The coverage above does ''not'' satisfy our established criteria in this case.  |Wikipedia is also not WikiNews
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)