Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliza Allen


 * 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 No consensus tending towards trainwreck. Not suitable for mass nom. I suggest reviewing and renominating the weakest to start with to gauge consensus properly. Tyrenius (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Eliza Allen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable. Nominating the list of similar people below.

All of these articles have no notability asserted and few (if any) references. And before anyone accuses me of WP:POINT, note that I have nothing against the other 31 articles in Category:Female wartime crossdressers. These articles in that category just don't quite reach notability standards. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Non-notable to you. But notable to the transgender community and Mexican-American War historians. Kingturtle (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep'. Important because published her memoirs. Asarelah (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Non-notable to you. Notable enough to be archived by the National Archives and Records Administration. Kingturtle (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep For the reason stated above. Asarelah (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for Hazel Carter in particular. She has a 1917 New York Times article written about her as well as the NAR record. &mdash; User: (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' Kit Cavanagh is one of the most famous and well-documented female wartime crossdressers in history. Asarelah (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. She has an article to herself in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and has been the subject of a 500-page book in Polish. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The article on the Polish Wiki looks to be thorough; perhaps a translation should be done and the article as it is replaced with that translation, but I think notability is met. matt91486 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons stated above. Asarelah (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even googling "Зоя Смирнова" turns up nothing (unless she's the same person as the 1940s film actress ...) --Paularblaster (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. She has an article to herself in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and has been the subject of a 500-page book in Polish. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The article on the Polish Wiki looks to be thorough; perhaps a translation should be done and the article as it is replaced with that translation, but I think notability is met. matt91486 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons stated above. Asarelah (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even googling "Зоя Смирнова" turns up nothing (unless she's the same person as the 1940s film actress ...) --Paularblaster (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. She has an article to herself in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and has been the subject of a 500-page book in Polish. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The article on the Polish Wiki looks to be thorough; perhaps a translation should be done and the article as it is replaced with that translation, but I think notability is met. matt91486 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons stated above. Asarelah (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even googling "Зоя Смирнова" turns up nothing (unless she's the same person as the 1940s film actress ...) --Paularblaster (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even googling "Зоя Смирнова" turns up nothing (unless she's the same person as the 1940s film actress ...) --Paularblaster (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep She raised and led an entire company of confederates. Isn't that a notable feat, especially for a female wartime crossdresser? Asarelah (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all Per nom. They are all just stubs that aren't very notable. All they did was cross-dressed during a war. Tavix (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. Being a stub is not cause for deletion. Kingturtle (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above. STORMTRACKER   94  17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All They didn't just cross dress, which is obviously not notable, but they disguised themselves as men to fight in wars and multiple independent sources do think that's notable. Eliza Allen's article has two sources already and the other articles I checked are also sourced to books so I don't understand the nomination rationale. There's no rationale for deleting 'stubs' for the sake of it either. The phenomena of women disguising themselves as men to fight has been discussed in many books  and academic papers.  It's not always a 'transgender' issue either, many of these women simply wanted to fight for a cause they believe in, or support their loved ones in that fight, and so donned male garb to do so.  Their exploits have attracted press, literary and popular attention throughout modern history and I don't understand the 'per nom' arguments that these people are simply 'not notable' for no very good reason.  Has the nominator searched for references and added any himself in addition to the ones already there?  I don't understand why he believes 31 to be notable but these people, who did exactly the same thing, are not. Nick mallory (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The only one on the list that has two sources listed is Lizzie Compton. Of the others, about six only have:
 * Salmonson, Jessica Amanda.(1991) The Encyclopedia of Amazons. Paragon House. Page 236. ISBN 1-55778-420-5
 * as a source. Being listed in "The Encyclopedia of Amazons" doesn't make you notable.
 * To your comments, Nick, I'm not debating that the concept -- going through what must be a harrowing ordeal (changing genders, for all practical purposes) in order to fight in a war -- that certainly is notable. On the level of individuals, though, these people aren't necessarily notable.  If any of these people meet the criteria of Notability, I'll be happy their AfD failed.  In my view, though, they don't meet Notability simply by going through the ordeal.  Not everyone that climbs Mt. Everest gets their own article, either. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Divide into separate discussions. They are all about the same length and use some of the same sources, but I don't see that they necessarily have the same notability. As Nick points out, some have two independent sources listed and thus are probably notable. Others I glanced at didn't, and their notability may be more difficult to establish, or perhaps fit better in a simple list. Since they cover a huge range of history and place, I don't find it helpful to consider them as a whole. Rigadoun (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Keep as per Nick Mallory. Edward321 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not only for the reasons stated above, but the fact that this phenomenon is so rare and subject is so unexplored by researchers that I think any female wartime crossdresser is notable. However, if the consensous is that these women are notable enough to warrent their own articles, they definately should be merged into the main article of Crossdressing during wartime rather than just being deleted. Asarelah (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into something like List of female wartime crossdressers. This is good encyclopedic information, but as each of these stubs is tiny, they can be merged easily, maybe using a table.  If someone wants to expand a particular one into a full article, it can be linked from the list.   Aleta   (Sing)  19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a list of female wartime crossdressers in the article Crossdressing during wartime. Asarelah (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all and, on the basis of the discussion here, consider renominating any of those for which, after a real investigation, there truly are no additional sources. The careers of these people are often notable,  for the public interest leads to books and articles about them. I wouldnt say any female wartime crossdresser is notable--there might well be thousands who have never been recognized or publicised; but if there are sources, then they are notable. We can't say it's rare, for how can we actually know that? . (And the popular culture section of the article about them could be much expanded--I can think of a number of folk ballads) DGG (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all as outcome of trainwreck - My impression is that the merits of the articles vary widely enough as to make them unsuitable for a multi-nom AFD, unfortunately. I concur with DGG - renominate individually those that merit renom based on notability and verifiability criteria. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all. per WP:HEY, and allow time for the stubs to be expanded.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2007 (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.