Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satronia Smith Hunt


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Satronia Smith Hunt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I have been completely unable to find sources that provide more to say about this woman than is in this article-- five sentences. Not sigcov to meet GNG by any measure. Perhaps there is an acceptable merge target? Eddie891 Talk Work 02:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's now a reasonable amount to sustain an article and deletion is unmerited. Sources I did not find on a Before have been brought up. Happy to strike my rationale. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a real life Mulan! Seems interesting enough. There is sourcing there. Don't see any great need to get rid of this article. - wolf  04:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG.  WP:HEY  WP:PRESERVE and WP:Not paper.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. After American history has swept this sort of occurrence under the rug for centuries it is saddening to find wikipedia trying to do the same thing. If nothing else leave it as a stub and let those interested in the topic pursue it. Carptrash (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Perhaps one of the WikiProject's looking to create/build/preserve articles about women can help here. Otherwise, it may need to deleted as WP is running out of space. - wolf 21:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The importance of this subject and Mrs. Hunt is discussed in detail and extensively at  Lest we forget!
 * Not the article it was when nominated for deletion. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Thanks to WP:HEY efforts by User:7&amp;6=thirteen, subject obviously meets WP:GNG requirements and this article should be kept for further development. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I find none of the sources added by 7&amp;6=thirteen convincing. Those are name drops and passing mentions; and frankly, this dredging-up of what is in essence the same sentence reused by half a dozen authors should be considered an admittance that there is just insufficient material for an article. Adding a pre-WWI section to Women in the military and including her name would be fine, but bowling for a standalone article seems to be stretching it. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Sioux City Journal (Sioux City, Iowa) 03 Aug 1928, Fri Page 7 has a lot of details about her. Significant coverage in a reliable source there.  Another is at The Coleridge Blade (Coleridge, Nebraska) 16 Aug 1928, Thu Page 8.   D r e a m Focus  23:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Link? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Requested links, and another surprising development:
 * County Pioneer Dies
 * WOMAN WHO SERVED AS CIVIL WAR SOLDIER DIES
 * Siouxland woman who fought in Civil War receives headstone -- In spite of multiple sources showing her name as "Satronia", she is buried in Sioux City, Nebraska, (NOT Iow) under a gravestone for "Sophronia Hunt"! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ' Weak delete - The sources presented are of high quality and relevance and it's clear that all statements made in the current state of the article are factual. However, these sources don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV, particularly the part on requiring more than "a trivial mention", which is what a lot of these sources seem to include. I would agree with the comments made by User:Elmidae that it would be worth expanding on a pre-WWI section in women in the military, though there appear to be many better choices from the category of other women who served as men in the Civil War. Changing my !vote to Keep', per WP:HEY. The improvements made seem to demonstrate notability through specific details on her actions during the war. Rovenrat (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A search for for Hunt's name in Google Books returns lots of works which discuss her, albeit briefly, so I think that WP:BIO is met. I'd have not complaints about upmerging though if an article was available (Women who served as men in the American Civil War would make for a great article). Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an article, but a category already exists on that topic: Category:Female wartime cross-dressers in the American Civil War. Rovenrat (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC – article has been expanded with reliable sources since being nominated for AfD. While the coverage is generally brief, I think it's more than "trivial", though just barely, But in the interests of preserving an article on a person judged to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in a variety of sources, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". For anyone who isn't convinced, I think the topic is interesting enough to WP:IAR in this case. Another option would be to merge to, keeping this page as a redirect per WP:ATD-R. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If a merge is warranted, a better target would be, which already has a brief summary of this article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I listed more newspaper clippings on the talk page, and the article has hamd any sources added since its nomination. Her name is given as "Satronia" in quite a few of the articles, but historian Shirley Sides, who arranged for her headstone, makes a strong case that her name was "Sophronia", and the article should be moved to "Saphronia Smith Hunt". There are plenty of reliable, independent sources to meet GNG. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Now more than adequately sourced and certainly about a historical figure deserving attention.--Ipigott (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.