Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Chambers
- 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 Voluntarily Userfied. The discussion was trending towards deletion at the time of userfication. AGF, just make sure to address the concerns before moving it back to article space, and hopefully we wont need to have a second discussion. Monty845 01:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Betty Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Sources only support that she was one of the first pilots in this program. What is her notability for? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This person is notable but the entry does not do enough to establish notability. I will try to work on it and bring it up to a properly sourced, stub status. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- I went looking for secondary sources to support notability before nominating for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- I spent a lot of time looking for and finding online sources to support Betty Chambers' notability. I believe that there are more sources and further information in book sources that are not digitized, but I am not able to go to the library and/or track these down at this point. Right now, this woman, who was awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously, and who was one of the earliest WASP pilots, has 20 citations for what I consider a solid stub article. It's not perfect but I think it passes notability and is now in condition to be Kept. While I agree that possibly the initial draft was not developed enough to be pushed to the mainspace, was part of a large initiative editathon that was done in conjunction with the National Archives, her notability is not in question, especially now. Please advise. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Again I ask, aside from being one of many early female pilots, what is she notable for? Did she go on to set some aviation record, or run for Congress, or star in a movie? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I guess I am confused here. Are you possibly confusing WASPs with the much larger WACs? The WASP program was highly selective, both mentally and physically rigorous, and was a program that produced pilots in a very short time. Within Chambers' class only 50% even passed. There were not many WASPs at all so it was a huge thing, and for this woman, whose husband was a pilot who died while in service to become a pilot herself -- while the mother of a baby not even a year old -- that is notable. Plus her son was featured in a very popular movie at the time, although I wanted to focus more on her than him. So yeah being a pilot was a big deal and makes her notable. This might be a failure on my part as there are a ton of resources in oral history collections and books on WASPs that would support her notability that I don't have access to or have a privacy lock until January 1, 2017. But for a stub I think this challenge to her notability is overly stringent, if anything has more to do with my inability to establish it than the facts of who she was. I would ask you to reconsider. Also I have asked for help from archival experts so please hold off on the deletion if possible. Again I think this AfD is unduly harsh but I am doing everything I can to address making article better. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- When I nominated this article for deletion, I first looked online to see if her notability could be established through reliable sources. Only then did I nominated this article per WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, as I didn't feel this bio met the criteria outlined there. Being someone's mother, or graduating from a rigorous training program, generally don't make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It's really nothing personal. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I never said this was personal. I'm not sure where that comment comes from. This page was created during a GLAM initiative that focused on the gender gap and highlighting archival records from the U.S. National Archives. The resources are within the collections of archival collections so a quick google search is not going to be the indicator or notability. Actually the fact that this is the basis for your decision as to notability is a concern. Not all collections are digitized or discoverable in this way. Wikipedia can establish important tertiary sources like these archival holdings and oral histories. But to rely on a google search for this decision of historical figures, well that is what highlighting National Archives records is all about. Again, I think this should be reconsidered as a measurement of notability. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- When I nominated this article for deletion, I first looked online to see if her notability could be established through reliable sources. Only then did I nominated this article per WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, as I didn't feel this bio met the criteria outlined there. Being someone's mother, or graduating from a rigorous training program, generally don't make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It's really nothing personal. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I guess I am confused here. Are you possibly confusing WASPs with the much larger WACs? The WASP program was highly selective, both mentally and physically rigorous, and was a program that produced pilots in a very short time. Within Chambers' class only 50% even passed. There were not many WASPs at all so it was a huge thing, and for this woman, whose husband was a pilot who died while in service to become a pilot herself -- while the mother of a baby not even a year old -- that is notable. Plus her son was featured in a very popular movie at the time, although I wanted to focus more on her than him. So yeah being a pilot was a big deal and makes her notable. This might be a failure on my part as there are a ton of resources in oral history collections and books on WASPs that would support her notability that I don't have access to or have a privacy lock until January 1, 2017. But for a stub I think this challenge to her notability is overly stringent, if anything has more to do with my inability to establish it than the facts of who she was. I would ask you to reconsider. Also I have asked for help from archival experts so please hold off on the deletion if possible. Again I think this AfD is unduly harsh but I am doing everything I can to address making article better. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Again I ask, aside from being one of many early female pilots, what is she notable for? Did she go on to set some aviation record, or run for Congress, or star in a movie? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I spent a lot of time looking for and finding online sources to support Betty Chambers' notability. I believe that there are more sources and further information in book sources that are not digitized, but I am not able to go to the library and/or track these down at this point. Right now, this woman, who was awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously, and who was one of the earliest WASP pilots, has 20 citations for what I consider a solid stub article. It's not perfect but I think it passes notability and is now in condition to be Kept. While I agree that possibly the initial draft was not developed enough to be pushed to the mainspace, was part of a large initiative editathon that was done in conjunction with the National Archives, her notability is not in question, especially now. Please advise. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. One of many WASPs, but she doesn't stand out. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, unless more is found and added with WP:RS cites, as currently it lacks notability in the end and WP:Memorial would apply. Kierzek (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy close without consensus. An editor (not the creator) has moved the article out of mainspace to userspace while they improve it. There is no need to pursue the AfD since the article is no longer in mainspace and no longer available to readers. General Ization Talk 00:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Also: Magnolia677, please note that establishing notability using online sources when the subject was primarily active prior to 1960 and not a public figure presents some special challenges. We have no requirement here that sources establishing notability be available online at all. General Ization Talk 00:41, 4 November 2016 (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.