Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shannon Faulkner


 * 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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Shannon Faulkner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:BLP1E. She is only known for briefly being a cadet; she wasn't even the first female graduate. The applicable content already exists at History of women in the United States. Despite being mentioned in reliable sources, it doesn't make sense for Wikipedia keeping a standalone article on her. I don't think the GNG bar is that low. There is one book that discusses this event but this review paints the book as a criticism of The Citadel's patriarchy more than any biographical work about Faulkner. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. She has received continuing coverage over the years and is still receiving coverage, even this week when her conciliatory comments during an appearance at the school drew an attack from Nancy Mace, the first woman to graduate from the school.  Not a BLP1E and notability is well established by the sources.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  23:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as she has had coverage in the news from the 90s to as recently as yesterday. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply as her admission, the court battle, and her subsequent departure from The Citadel were not a single event. The most recent coverage about her is regarding comments she made during a speech last week, which is another new event, and shows the coverage of her has been WP:SUSTAINED over a long period of time. She also satisfies WP:ANYBIO for "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" as she was the first woman accepted at The Citadel, her entry is what paved the way for four female attendees the next year (one of whom became the first graduate) and the events surrounding her resignation and their significance are still being discussed to this day. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Regarding WP:BLP1E I think whether criterion #1 applies here is very much a subjective matter; #2 does apply; and #3 does not apply. Hence BLP1E does not require us to delete this article. I think the notability guidelines and the BLP policy are met. However, I think there is a case for redirecting {merging?) with History of The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina but this is an editorial opinion, appropriate for discussion at Talk:Shannon Faulkner and not a matter for AfD. Thincat (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maybe she shouldn't be notable, however multiple RSes covering her (evident by just a peek at google news and google books) - make her reach SIGCOV, and its seems aspects of this coverage go beyond the law suit and 1 week stay at the Citadel., . The alternative would be to merge to the citadel, but I'm leaning Keep on this one.Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep significant coverage over time, certainly not a BLP1E, as per . Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk)
 * After doing some improvement to the article, I can clearly see that there's no way this a BLP1E. For example, she was first involved in a 2 1/2 year court case that was appealed up to the Supreme Court. She was covered significantly over that time period. Then she entered The Citadel. This was also extensively covered. Books have been written about her and she's still covered in the news from 1999, 2009 to 2018. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My argument is that none of that matters. I acknowledge there are lots of sources that discuss her. The BLP1E argument rests on the fact that she waged a legal battle to get into The Citadel, quit training only hours in, and left the school by the end of the week. All media about her is about that. Nobody knew who she was prior to this incident and absent media inquiries into what happened to her, no one knows who she is now. I don't believe that media coverage generated during someone's 15 minutes of fame counts. To my knowledge, Wikipedia should not be writing about such trivialities, despite the fact that journalists desperate to fill inches and minutes keep talking about it. The presence of reliable sources does not guarantee inclusion. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E is specific about the criteria. It gives three examples. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." There are many events about Faulkner that were reported on, including her admission, the court battle, departure, and her statements afterward. But let's says that counts as one event and look at the other criteria. WP:BLP1E further clarifies, "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." That doesn't apply here as she's still speaking and receiving news coverage years later. Lastly, "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Her contribution is very significant since her court battle is what allowed women to apply to get into the school the next year. Additionally, it was extremely well documented. There's no way WP:BLP1E was meant to apply to a situation like this. It's for when a person gets on stage and flashes the audience during a Superbowl or something. It could be all over the news, but if you never hear about that person again it doesn't make the person signficant, only the event. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a BLP1E - she's received continuous coverage, including for her recent 2018 speech (and whether being there for a week makes her a graduate) - . Should she have been covered by the media (and elsewhere) following her 15 minutes of fame? Maybe not - but that's something to take up with the editor of the Washington Post and the New York Times (and all the other sources that cover her) - and not at Wikipedia where we follow sources (which leads us to coverage celebrities and the like, for instance).Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG. Missvain (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Sustained coverage. Books written about her = passes WP:GNG.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia should not be writing about such trivialities" = WP:TRIVIAL.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  13:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe you ought to read WP:TRIVIAL before you cite it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Corrected.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:05, 12 March 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.