Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Carter


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hazel Carter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Well short of satisfying WP:BIO. Disguising herself as a man to try to be near her husband doesn't merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 03:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 03:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 03:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 03:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see no general notability here.-- Georgia Army Vet  Contribs  Talk  03:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete Keep her story was printed in hundreds of newspapers in 1917 and 1918 (here is a sample). She seems to pass WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I think the 1E issue is clear, but the event itself seems fairly significant, given the coverage. For the event to be covered under WP:NEVENT, however, it is expected to have more duration of coverage and I'd like to see recent coverage in some detail. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my !vote. It looks to me like there is in depth discussion of her in: Wheelwright, Julie. Amazons and military maids: women who dressed as men in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Pandora, 1989. I only get snippet view from that book in google books, but the discussion seems in depth and covers three or four pages (82, 93, 96, and possibly another). The author of that book, Wheelwright, is a well respected journalist and scholar, for what it is worth. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete I see no point for the article to stay. Notability not established at all. RedFlame 08:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - passing trivia and Wikipedia is not a newspaper, see WP:Notnews. Also given she was only written about "a lot" 100 years ago, only further shows the trivial passing interest. Kierzek (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep She's been written about in a 2014 book and was in the news A LOT in 1917 and 1918. There's a lot of info about what she did and what happened after. She wrote about her experience and was published in the Bell Syndicate. She died tragically and was given a military funeral. I've improved the article. Take a look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Written about in a 2014 book" = there is one very short paragraph about her in a book that aims to document "Women in War from Prehistory to the Present". Bueller 007 (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * it shows interest into the present day. There's plenty of long-form information about her. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know what the footnote in that book refers to? Smmurphy(Talk) 20:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately my copy isn't complete. I looked on Project MUSE for a full text, but came up empty. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. One event. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete total failure of one event rule. She never made it to the front, and actually was not even trying to be a soldier. She also had way less impact than women nurses and Red Cross volunteers, so including her in the "Women in Warfare" book showed the authors total lack of understanding of what the real contribution of women to war historically was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a non-internet age individual and that she was covered at all is significant. She was covered in her own time and later.  This meets the multiple, independent third-party standard.  A remarkable woman and BIO1E is a guideline, not a policy.  One very remarkable act is sufficient to establish notability in this case.   Montanabw (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Impeccable references that meet gng. --RAN (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Megalibrarygirl, Smmurphy and Montanabw. Many one time events Lawn Chair Larry, Rodney King can become significant enough to garner sufficient note to define popular culture of a specific era. Given the number of articles written at the time, and continued mentions/articles to present in RS, , , , , subject meets the threshold of encyclopedic notability and GNG. SusunW (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and notable for one event only.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY and the "covered in her own time and later" observations above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - As it was at nomination, it was a textbook WP:BIO1E. Now, however, it's a textbook WP:HEY. Well done and notability well established. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep what's now become a substantial well-sourced article showing notability. Pam  D  10:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY Eddie891 Talk Work 22:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- The subject of multiple examples of substantial, independently published coverage in sources of presumed reliability, i.e. passe GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the coverage in independent sources is sufficient to pass WP:GNG.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:04, 1 January 2018 (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.