Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Chambers (pilot)


 * 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. Although strongly leaning toward Keep Joyous! | Talk 01:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Chambers (pilot)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. The only reliable secondary source in the whole article seems to be this one from the National Archives. There rest of the article is passing mentions and Find-a-Grave. This person was certainly a very accomplished pilot, but her notability is not obvious. She didn't appear to break any records, or write a book, or do any of those other things that make people notable on Wikipedia. Add to that the paucity of secondary sources and this article doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel terrible about this AFD because it appears to have been created during a recent Meetup/National Archives Gender Equality Edit-a-Thon, and because the creator is a relatively new editor who appears to have created only two previous articles, both similar to this.  One of which was deleted and the other of which is, apparently rightly, tagged for notability.  This feels tragic, since she cannot possible be personally related to all three of the female veterans she has created articles for.  Something must be wrong with our Edit-a-thon system or the guidance we provide to new editors, for a new(ish) editor acting in such obvious good faith to have created articles without reliable, secondary sourcing.  Still, I have to say delete, because I searched and can find no secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has more than enough citations that establish notability. In addition to the NARA article there are articles about her in the military press of the time. There is archival material from the National Archives as well as from THE repository on WASP pilots, Texas Woman's University, as well. Additionally this WASP program was highly competitive and I believe very few people made it into the program, much less passed through training, which is illustrated by the actual statistics that were gathered from TWU archival sources. I have to wonder if it is a lack of clicking through these digitized resources and also a basic lack of understanding of the WASP program where often these women died in the jobs and then because they were wrongly classified as citizens, did not even get proper burial funding, much less recognition. Elizabeth Chambers is not related to anyone working on this page. She was selected because shortly after losing her pilot husband to a tragic flying accident, and with a young baby, she had the guts to become a pilot herself and serve in a dangerous unit. Also, her son was in a HUGELY popular movie at the time called Heaven Can Wait. That is also notable. I believe strongly that the review of notability here is unfair and is not warranted, is unnecessarily rigorous. Finally this page was created by an Archivist at the National Archives, which both Wikimedia DC and Wikimedia New York City are partnering with to encourage the inclusion of content onto Wikipedia. This AfD request is a very unconstructive precedent for a page with great adequate sources for a stub article. I think the bigger picture should be considered, as well as the fact that the entry is solid. I believe it establishes notability and think the requirements here are way too rigorous. BrillLyle (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that I moved the page to my user space to preserve the significant information contained on the page while waiting for NARA to provide further materials. I know this is untypical but I don't want to lose the great work already done. BrillLyle (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An update, I heard back from the NARA archivist and there's a large file of information on Chambers that can be requested from the repository in St. Louis. So I will keep a copy of the page in my name space and when or if that information is accessible (and I have also done a more thorough search on the huge treasure trove of books on WASPs that AREN'T digitized), then I will attempt to fill in the page and hopefully it will pass this very stringent requirement.
 * That said I am still shocked and dismayed that the criteria for results to solve AfD is a Google Book search and an (I am assuming online) search for biographical information about someone who had a career WAY before the internet. Also since when did NARA and military newspapers become sources that are specious? These are government records that have a lot more legitimacy than many news sources that are allowed. And military newspapers seem just as legit as mainstream newspapers. I guess the implication is that these were puff pieces because there may have been a female audience? I start to then become even more dismayed.
 * So I continue to not hear great arguments for the deletion of this article. Should ALL of the WASPs be allowed to have pages? Of course not. But this woman was selected as an example by NARA of a notable person to put forward. This woman did all the things I referred to in my prior response. The documentation is there enough for a stub. And what does it really hurt Wikipedia at the end of the day that there is a short stub of an article that is well-researched, has adequate citations, and fills in a picture of a time in the history of the United States that I suspect many people don't know about. I know that researching this woman and the program the WASPs were in was very illustrative and interesting. So yeah, I think this is over-reaching to reject it, but I'll just keep trying until I can pass AfD. At this point I am determined so, yeah, you're warned I am not going to let this die. It might take a few years but it's going to be improved and will pass muster, eventually. BrillLyle (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - Elizabeth Chambers is dead, so she is definitely not going to be doing anything notable in the future. It's also unlikely anyone is suddenly going to unearth something new and notable that hasn't yet been shoehorned into this article.  You write, "what does it really hurt Wikipedia at the end of the day".  The policy regarding notability was agreed upon by a consensus of editors, and many of us support the integrity of the project.  If you don't like Wikipedia's policies, start a discussion to have them changed, or seek the input of other editors next time before expending so much effort on a biography that might not "pass muster".  Furthermore, I have yet to see an AFD discussion swayed by self-pity.  Magnolia677 (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First off, I object to the comment on self pity. That is not part of the conversation I have been having here. It seems personal and unnecessary. And more pointedly, inaccurate. Not sure what the deal is but I reject that soundly. Feedback, take it if you want. Secondly, if you know anything beyond internet-available resources, if you know anything about libraries and archives, you understand that the digitization processes of great citation-worthy materials can take years. And often material exists but there is no way to monetize and/or justify the very expensive digitizing process. Not to mention material that has copyright constraints, which is also a big problem area that prohibits release except to researchers who go to the repository in person. So end result: a lot of information is never digitized. To suppose that material does not exist that would be great supporting citations and further information is actually one of the more erroneous things I have heard in, well, ever. This is so wrong it isn't even defensible. So yeah, if this is the basis for the AfD then I am REALLY going to be taking a long-term and dedicated interest in proving this AfD wrong. I am actually flabbergasted, and will be telling some of my working librarian and archivist friends this story and will be holding my stomach laughing. Well I won't because I am pretty unhappy with this AfD at this point. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the lead of this most recent argument, that she's "dead so she is definitely not going to be doing anything notable in the future" argument? So I guess only living people who might do notable things in the future are notable?!? I mean, now I really AM laughing. Come on, really? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can order for a fee Chambers' 70-100 page personnel file from NARA St. Louis but this is now bordering on the absurd. Just wanted to note that this file will have a lot of I am sure very rich data to add to the claim she is notable. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources such as the National Archives and Texas Woman's University demonstrate that the topic passes WP:BASIC. I have moved the page back to mainspace as that's where it belongs and any other action must wait upon the closure of the discussion.  Userfication will remain an option. Andrew D. (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:BASIC states that Wikipedia biographies must demonstrate a depth of coverage, and use secondary sources. There seems to be only one secondary source used to support notability, and even that source isn't really independent of the subject (a US government agency writing a bio about a US government employee).  I searched for a solid biographical piece about this person and found nothing.  Google Books brings back nothing.  As well, WP:ANYBIO lists addition criteria, which the subject of this biography doesn't appear to have.  Clearly the editor who created this article put in a lot of effort, but Wikipedia's notability criteria were constructed by consensus, and they exist for good reasons.  Magnolia677 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete sorry buy I cant see anything in the article that shows notability and the only claim in the article "notable for becoming a pilot shortly after her husband lost his life while flying, despite the fact that she had a new baby" is not actually supported by the reference which just mentions it as a fact. All one thousand odd of these women are worthy individuals but I dont think we need an article on each of them just for joining up. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Women who became pilots before 1960 and especially those who served their country are notable enough for Wikipedia. Further agree on legitimacy of sources. Passes in my opinion based on notable occupations of minority groups. Has nothing to do with the baby, though that definitely is surprising and should stay in there. Jane (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - Has a consensus been reached someplace that all women who became pilots before 1960 and served their country are notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Could you please link to that policy or consensus?  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Common sense. Thanks you. Jane (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's from the lede of the Wikipedia article about Women Airforce Service Pilots:
 * The Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP), called "Women's Army Service Pilots" in some sources, was a paramilitary aviation organization. The WASP's predecessors, the Women's Flying Training Detachment (WFTD) and the Women's Auxiliary Ferrying Squadron (WAFS) organized separately in September 1942. They were the pioneering organizations of civilian female pilots, employed to fly military aircraft under the direction of the United States Army Air Forces during World War II. The WFTD and WAFS were merged on August 5, 1943, to create the paramilitary WASP organization. The female pilots of the WASP ended up numbering 1,074, each freeing a male pilot for combat service and duties. They flew over 60 million miles in every type of military aircraft. The WASP was granted veteran status in 1977, and given the Congressional Gold Medal in 2009. 
 * Over 25,000 women applied; however, only 1,074 were accepted into the WASPs. The accepted women all had prior experience and pilot's licences. Of those accepted, the majority were white; aside from white women, the WASP had two Mexican American women, two Chinese American women (Hazel Ying Lee and Maggie Gee), and one Native American woman (Ola Mildred Rexroat). Due to the existing climate of racial discrimination, the only African American applicant was asked to withdraw her application. 
 * So yes it was extremely competitive. Not all, but NARA felt she was important enough to highlight, so I am going to say this establishes this. As well as that pesky common sense thing. :-) -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If 1000 women were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, then that averages to about 20 per state and it would be a good idea to create articles for all of them. If these women are good enough for the medal, they are notable enough for Wikipedia. We don't need to create a policy for that. Jane (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This might have changed since the time this article was originally nominated for deletion, but currently I count more than a dozen citations from the likes of National Archives, TWU publications, GPO, NPR, WASP's newsletter, & TCM. There is no doubt in my mind that it passes notability muster regarding sources as per WP:BASIC & certainly items #1 (Congressional Gold Medal) & #2 (first women to fly U.S. military planes) at WP:ANYBIO. Peaceray (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * - Regarding the sources you mention (in order):
 * National Archives - a lengthy source, but just barely secondary, as it is a government source writing about a government employee.
 * TWU - a photo and one sentence.
 * GPO? - Couldn't find it.
 * NPR - The article doesn't even mention her.
 * WASP Newsletter - About Elizabeth Chambers, the source writes: "Betty Chambers 44-3 is now married-- the When? and To whom? are missing. She was working for Am. Airlines at LaGuardia Field until recently." That's it.  Hardly a secondary source, and certainly lacking the kind of detail needed to establish notability.
 * TCM - Please explain how this source--which doesn't mention her name even once--can support her notability?
 * While I would agree that receiving the Congressional Gold Medal should "pass muster" per WP:ANYBIO, it was awarded en masse to over 1,000 WASP pilots at the same time. Hardly a unique award.  This entire article is supported junk links and Find-A-Grave, and one barely secondary source.  Magnolia677 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. It has come to this? Alright, I will take a stab at addressing these. I guess I could also go down the line of citations on the page and justify why they in total are establishing notability but for now I will address the ones you pointed out.
 * But again, I think this is over-reaching in terms of scrutiny of a perfectly good stub.
 * National Archives - a lengthy source, but just barely secondary, as it is a government source writing about a government employee.
 * Actually it's an article by an archival division presenting information about holdings within its collection about someone who was a civilian. So it is a government archive, yes, but she was never considered a government employee. But even if she was a military person recognized as a government employee, this source is completely legit.
 * TWU - a photo and one sentence.
 * This is a solid primary source
 * GPO? - Couldn't find it.
 * For G.P.O., please see United States Government Publishing Office and this cite here. I forgot to add the link, which I have fixed.
 * NPR - The article doesn't even mention her.
 * It's about the program, giving context for the work she did. I believe this is okay to do to establish the role she played in WWII
 * WASP Newsletter - About Elizabeth Chambers, the source writes: "Betty Chambers 44-3 is now married-- the When? and To whom? are missing. She was working for Am. Airlines at LaGuardia Field until recently." That's it.  Hardly a secondary source, and certainly lacking the kind of detail needed to establish notability.
 * It's a reference the supports Chambers being married and working at American Airlines. It isn't an insidious plot to establish anything but these facts.
 * TCM - Please explain how this source--which doesn't mention her name even once--can support her notability?
 * TCM is a respected database. It is there to support the fact that her son, who is referenced in the article, was in the movie, although he appeared uncredited. Which was common for smaller roles. That said, Heaven Can Wait was a huge movie with a major star. And he played the main character as a baby. So, establishing this fact.
 * While I would agree that receiving the Congressional Gold Medal should "pass muster" per WP:ANYBIO, it was awarded en masse to over 1,000 WASP pilots at the same time. Hardly a unique award.  This entire article is supported junk links and Find-A-Grave, and one barely secondary source
 * This government award had a huge impact. The WASPs, because of this award and the public recognition were then granted the right to be buried at Arlington. So this is a big deal. Over 1,000 WASPs is actually the unique thing. It is to support reflection of the danger and work that these women did. The cite only supports the fact that if she was part of this group honored in this way.
 * And:
 * Article and picture in military newspaper is legit:
 * Article in military newspaper is legit:
 * Article in military newspaper is legit. Describes her work and establishes that she was sent as a representative of her WASP group.
 * Photo and establishes where she was born, in official yearbook, which is legit:
 * Super important citation that establishes how difficult it was to become a WASP. Out of 96 entering what was already an elite program, only 57 women actually made it through the program.
 * Photo from archival collection of subject at job entry is references. Legit.
 * Another super important citation that establishes Chambers' personnel record, how many hours she had flying at Greenwood where she was in active duty. This is a government report about that is an extremely legit record of her service.
 * The TWU BioFile for Chambers that collocates the planes she few and the places she served. Legit. This was generated as part of an archival collection. See GLAM initiative, which is a Wikipedia-backed initiative that attempts to reference archival works that are digitized like this, and most importantly, a Wikipedia initiative that highlight collections like the WASP collection at TWU, onto Wikipedia. 100% legit. Mission critical to adding great content to Wikipedia. Legit Legit Legit.
 * In sum: I think maybe there is a misunderstanding about the value of the previous mentions and these additional 8 citations from an archival and collections perspective possibly? All of these serve to establish her notability and should mean that this stub should be able to stay on Wikipedia. I am concerned at the lack of understanding of this concept here. This is not a trivial thing, here. This is an attempt to address the gender gap of a woman who was doing a remarkable thing for this time. It is important to women pilots, to women who serve in the military, and to the history of America during WWII. I am not understanding the objections here at all. Beside the fact that this entry is solid. Please reconsider. You also seem to be the only one so actively pursuing the AfD. I am not sure why this is being so passionately defended, attempting to delete good content. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia is better for having this article. Being one of the first women to take on a male dominated profession should be notable. Moreover, the fact that Chambers and others like her were not recognized as veterans for their work at the time I think reinforces the point that their task was a difficult one and one that is noteworthy. Too bad she wasn't an arena football player who played in one game. Then she would be presumed notable. Apparently playing one game as a professional athlete, even if a lesser viewed sport, is more noteworthy than breaking down gender barriers. To me, this article highlights is that Wikipedia's notability guidelines often don't capture what articles truly add value to our encyclopedia. Knope7 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want a good laugh, you should try some of the articles about cricketers such as Chitty (cricketer). Notability is not a policy and that's because it is ludicrously subjective.  The actual policies that apply here are WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is well-sourced and the information from the National Archives and TWU helps establish notability. Agree with and, she was part of an elite group of women breaking gender barriers and should be part of our encyclopedia. There are enough reliable sources to write a fleshed-out bio. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As highlighted before, the article is well-sourced and has some independent reliable sources, in my opinion enough to pass WP:GNG. And this AfD nomination highlights why we need to create articles at gender equality edit-a-thons- doubt a man with this many sources would have ended up at AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - By my count, the only secondary source in the whole article is this one, and even it is sketchy, as it is a US government author writing about a US government employee. Can you add a link to any other lengthy, reliable secondary sources?  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or are you the only editor repeating this very strange -- and quite frankly incorrect -- statement that NARA, a massive repository of culturally and historically significant information, an archive of beautifully citation-worthy information, is simply "the US government" writing about a "US government employee," another misnomer as she was more than just some clock-punching employee. This is all completely part of the GLAM initiative to get more great content onto Wikipedia. I agree wholeheartedly with that this type of scrutiny would not be ending up in AfD if it was about a man. And the whole point of this editathon and initiative.
 * Just like to comment that this is nothing to do with being male or female they are just being judged on the previous notability consensus for military aviators, if this article survives it may then set a precedent for thousands of both female and male non-notable aviators to have articles, I suggest it needs wider scrutiny then just this AfD as it lowers the notability level considerably. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to end AfD I think there is enough consensus here that the article is a solid stub that this AfD should be dismissed. There seems to be one, lone editor, who has some misunderstanding possibly, of what NARA is, and the significance and value of its holdings as it relates to Wikipedia content. I for one am EXHAUSTED trying to argue this AfD. It is solid. Please release it. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well if we ignore their policyless discussion for 2 days, then it will have reached the 7 days, and can be kept in peace. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - You are not correct. More than one editor who has participated in this AFD has agreed to delete the article.  Also, the fact that this is the second deletion nomination for this article, was somehow left out of this discussion.  The first AFD was Articles for deletion/Betty Chambers, and it was a delete, as this one should be.  Magnolia677 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true. The first AfD was closed when the article was voluntarily userfied. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - and if anyone is near the Air Zoo in Kalamazoo Michigan any time soon, they have a plethora of information on the WASP program and the women in it, including her. Perhaps one of the curators at that museum can aid someone in finding additional sources. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving
 * Thanks so much! I emailed the Air Zoo to see if they might have any information that could add to the article. Really appreciate the tip! Best to you! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so happy to report that I heard back from the Air Zoo's Director of Exhibits and Museum Programming as well as their Collection Registrar. So fast. I am grateful. Air Zoo exhibited the Fly Girls exhibit that was on display at Arlington National Cemetery during the National Gold Medal Ceremony in 2010. To the Collection Registrar's knowledge Chambers was the only widow and mother in the WASPs. The exhibit has biographical information about each individual WASPs. So I added that to the lede. It's something helpful to separate Chambers and show her notability. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - There's nothing in Notability (people) stating that being a widow and a mother add to a person's notability. Please explain.  Magnolia677 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am hesitant to even answer this question because it seems like you are probably joking, right? To be accepted into the WASP program was highly selective, and then to get through the WASP training was a major accomplishment. The fact she had within months lost her husband AND had a baby, and was stationed at a base away from her kid in Mississippi (after being at Sweetwater, etc.), is this not enough to satisfy and actually define what a unique and notable person she was?!? I am not quite sure what the deal is here, and why this issue of notability is so difficult to understand. NONE of what she did or achieved was trivial. Have the two days proceeded enough to remove this AfD. This is really exhausting and is exactly why AfD is a nightmare. I don't want to become uncivil here, but it mystifies me that one recalcitrant editor can behave in such an obstructive manner, and that it is okay. I believe AfD could be used effectively, but this case has illustrated very clearly the shortcomings of the process. So hopefully this was just a joke maybe? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:MilborneOne expressed the same concern as I do (see above); "the only claim in the article 'notable for becoming a pilot shortly after her husband lost his life while flying, despite the fact that she had a new baby' is not actually supported by the reference which just mentions it as a fact. All one thousand odd of these women are worthy individuals but I don't think we need an article on each of them just for joining up". That editor also stated that this AFD "lowers the notability level considerably".  There were 1000 or more WASPs, and Chambers is no more notable than any of others.  She was a true patriot, and had the fortitude to pursue a difficult training program despite adversity.  But I don't feel that is enough to make her notable by Wikipedia standards.  The fact that there has been much lamenting in this AFD about how a one-game cricket player is more notable in the eyes of Wikipedia further demonstrates that the bar needs to be lowered for this one. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you should consider the Don't demolish the house while it's still being built essay. Just as editors have raised notability questions about this article, others are addressing those concerns. I think that the AFD request is premature due to these efforts, & right now the Snowball clause essay may be relevant concerning AFD. My advice is to give it some time for the inclusionists to do their work before applying the exclusionist scrutiny. There's certainly other editing work to do in the meantime, rather than to keep arguing about this article's current but mutable state. Peaceray (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whatever its state a week ago, the article as it stands is better sourced than a great many. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:59, 23 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.