Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Hampton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Hampton[edit]

Despite the tragedy surrounding her death, Wikipedia is not a memorial for every serviceperson who died in Iraq. Or anyplace else. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't believe this. Fails WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:BIO, and WP:V. Doesn't even try to make an assertion of notability aside from having a public library (!!!) named after her. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability isn't sufficiently established. Leaning keep in light of new information brought to light by AnonEMouse. Heimstern Läufer 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: very sad, but I must agree with opinions above.
Weak keep per Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above every soldier killed in Iraq is mentioned in some newspapers article. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:INN. We're not discussing James Kim. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but why be hypocritical? Edison 05:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She was also the first female officer killed in Iraq. Until this month, she was also the highest-ranking woman killed in Iraq.[3] With references meets notability. Note, I don't think getting something named for you is notability. It's more of a correlative factor. --Dhartung | Talk 20:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not assert any notability. I fully understand you should be involved, but from neutral point of view it is really not notable. There are 24,456,700 military casualties during World War Two, you can't create 24,456,700 articles. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not put words in my mouth when making your arguments. It violates good faith. You have not said why the assertion of notability fails, except to say "it does not". --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that Wikipedia is not edited by native-english speakers only. I do not put any word into your mouth - I do not care about your mouth. it does not is nothing against good faith it is a simple statement that what you said is not enough for satisfy notability, that's all. Do not look for double meaning. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair is fair, then. Please do not argue that because I said this subject is notable, I am extending notability to 24 million other subjects. I am not. You are presenting a straw man. I would appreciate that you do not do that again. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not take it personally please, I really did not want to insult you in any way. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if subject's death gets a modest amount of coverage and a gov't agency decides to name something like a library in the subject's honor, it's just notable enough. hateless 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you not understand how many libraries, highways, bridges, etc. are named after nonentities? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dryly You were expecting people to vote on policy and logic? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never saw that. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, things seem to get a bit personal around here. But if you want policy so badly, from WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Then check Google. Please argue against that. hateless 01:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, while I appreciate the rationale for the delete comments and the desire to maintain standards of notability, but we also need to bear in mind that in a case like this, the article may very well have been created by people who loved and cared about the subject. They understandably won't have been familiar with Wikipedia's notability standards, and while that doesn't mean we have to keep non-notable articles, it does mean that comments like "I can't believe this!" could please be phrased differently. On the merits, agree with AnonEMouse. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete clearly and should be removed by closing admin by WP:IAR if necessary since it is bad bad precedent! This is not a memorial and conflating brief press coverage with larger notability is erroneous and wrong-headed. Eusebeus 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note James Kim and Jessica McClure as precedents. Edison 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was going to stay out of this given the circumstances of the AfD, but props to AnonEMouse on the extra research. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article will require rewrite to meet appropriate tone and style and to incorporate information revealed by AnonEMouse, above. However, especially given the social and political issues relating to women in the US military and in combat situations, the "first US woman pilot killed in combat" is adequate to meet notability requirements. Furter, all Iraqi casualties get a newspaper article; not all of them get coverage on MSNBC. Many (although not all) will have libraries and other local building named for them; few will even be considered to have a highway named after them. This does not presage a slippery slope that mandates the inclusion of 24 million WWII casualties, nor are all pages for dead people memorials. Serpent's Choice 03:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I shall not offer input as to delete or keep, as it appears this AfD is headed for a default rule. I see for the most part good conversation, which brings my comment here. These type articles sometimes get heated, and I just ask everyone to consider that this woman’s family is possibly now watching, or will possibly see this conversation in the future. Please, let us remember that not only are we as editors human, but we ultimately have an audience who will see our work here. Thanks. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tragic loss of young life, but subject was ordinary casualty of war, and there's nothing notable about her in the article. not a memorial. Ohconfucius 06:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse's arguments. Being the first female pilot to be killed by enemy fire is a record of sorts and establishes notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, see below. Delete, just another victim of war, nothing special. Unless we are also making articles for the first killed muslim pilot, the first killed vegetarian pilot and the first killed male pilot. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Below comment notwithstanding, I should note that while Speicher was the first pilot (presumed) killed in Iraq, Hampton is the first female pilot killed in combat at all. The ongoing political debate regarding women in the military, and, specifically, women in combat situations confers notability to this event, and verifiability and reliable sources have already been demonstrated. Serpent's Choice 03:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at all the source more closely, I agree. But I am very sorry that no one of all the people in favor of keeping this article took the job upon them to actually add those sources to the article (I just did that myself). Therefore, I changed my vote to abstain rather than keep. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So I expect that for consistency, Zoel and Reinoutr will get busy today deleting the Scott Speicher article, which has only blogs to support his notability. Edison 15:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is certainly not a key feature of Wikipedia. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficient notability has been established. Mikemoto 12:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being first at something that made the news will be kept alive by the local historical society until her hometown vanishes from the map. We aren't a memorial, but we do keep biographies of notable dead people, and she meets the WP:BIO tests for the enduring historic record. GRBerry 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has verifyable coverage in reliable sources. Not hugely notable but notable enough. Eluchil404 08:42, 23 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kimberly_Hampton&oldid=1137971917"