Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Elizabeth Whitton


 * 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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  00:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sheila Elizabeth Whitton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unfortunately, as she seems to have been a fascinating woman, there's little indication of notability here. My searches didn't find coverage to meet GNG at proquest, newspapers.com, google, gbooks, archive.org, and the Syracuse University library catalogue. I'd love to be proven wrong, however. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per my earlier reply to Eddie. Like Eddie, open to changing !vote if other sources emerge. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication of notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a source to the article that includes support for notability and a list of books and memoirs about the WRENS. Beccaynr (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you claiming as the basis of her notability? WRENS are a notable group, just being part of a notable group doesn't confer individual notability. Mztourist (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Due to the list of references in the source I added to the article, per WP:NEXIST, it now appears that there is a specific "possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Beccaynr (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained what you believe makes her notable, nor provided SIGCOV in RS to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:SOLDIER and the addition of the source quoting the Chief of Naval Staff, it appears that Whitton "played an important role in a significant military event such as a major ... campaign" and "there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about [Whitton]'s birth, personal life, education and military career," so a stand-alone article appears warranted. The newly-added source also includes a list of additional sources that could help address the requests raised above for more references. Beccaynr (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What "important role" in what "significant military event"? Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This source: 'We were sworn to secrecy': Canadian women share stories of their efforts to help win WWII (CBC News), includes discussion of "taking bearings on German submarines and intercepting their coded messages to Nazi Germany, the women sat for hours, earphones on, listening. [...] The Wrens at Coverdale and units like it across the Allied world became known as 'the listeners.'" Based on the information already included in the article, this sounds like Whitton's role, i.e. an important role in a major military campaign. There also seems to be notability in how Queen Elizabeth specifically called on Canadian women to help with the war effort (CBC Digital Archives), but Whitton's role specifically appears to have additional notability as a "coder" in The Battle of the Atlantic (Government of Canada), e.g. "1943 marked the start of a year-long period in which the Canadian Navy was second to none in finding and sinking submarines." Based on the availability of independent and reliable sources, it looks like a more encyclopedic article could be developed for Whitton, if additional information can be sourced to describe what she did during her service. Beccaynr (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes they did their job, just like everyone else, but there is nothing that shows that Whitton herself "played an important role in a significant military event" i.e. the Battle of the Atlantic. Otherwise everyone at Bletchley Park was notable, everyone in the Royal Navy was notable, etc. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Added two more reference sources profiling her, I'm doing some research this week to find more. John Cummings (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of secondary source coverage. Primary source interviews do not count for notability and while the WRENS in general were notable, Whitton herself is not individually notable enough for an article. Kges1901 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IAR. The nomination starts with "Unfortunately, as she seems to have been a fascinating woman..." I agree, and I think we should bend our interpretation of the rules in favor of keeping articles on fascinating women (and people in general, but women are often under-reported in history) who are well-documented enough for us to be well-assured that the accounts are likely to be accurate. BD2412  T 03:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added two more sources: one that references codebreakers at Bletchley Park as "arguably the first role for women in tech" (Guardian) and another that discusses the accomplishments of codebreaking WRENS at Bletchley Park (Smithsonian Magazine). I also saw various links in my research that seemed like they offer service records, which might help focus more specifically on Whitton's role. One of the challenges is the classification of the military information until recently; but there already appears to be independent biographical coverage of Whitton in the article, and there is some information about what she was doing during her military service. Based on what has been found so far, there appears to be coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources about her military service. Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Article has changed a fair bit, but this dialogue has only just started. A consensus may be able to be formed either way with another 7 days.
 * Keep per BD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per BD and the bang-up job that has been done with this article since nomination. It's not like this is a worthless perma-stub with a birth date and death date; it's a well-written and adequately sourced article that you can actually learn something useful from. On what basis should that be thrown to the flames? jp×g 11:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the users who have !voted ‘keep’ since seem to be basing their votes essentially on them feeling something is fascinating, which is incredibly concerning to me. If we start keeping articles based upon feelings and not our notability guidelines, where do we stop? While I sympathize with concerns over systematic bias, the way to remedy that is by creating and improving articles on notable topics, of which there are many— not by keeping articles where there simply isn’t coverage to establish notability. The amount of information we can verify is immense, the amount of people for which we can write sourced bios for is pretty high and you can probably find something fascinating about tens of millions of people. yet we don’t have articles on all of them because our notability standards are what make Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My opinion of the point of notability is that it's a test to see if it's possible to write an article that complies with core content policies. GNG is one such test, but by no means the only such test (SNGs etc), and WP:N is just a guideline. It appears to me that here we have an article where it's possible to write a neutral article with verifiable information and no original research. Anything more, well, WP:NOTPAPER applies imv: Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. This appears, to me, to be encyclopaedic content which meets the Five pillars. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * : the problem is that this is not the case. Of the ten sources in the article, five don't mention Whitton and are just about the WRENS in general, three are non-bylined obituaries are (two of which are the same obituary in The Globe and Mail. For context, an obituary like this is not indicative of notability, is a poor source by itself and was probably submitted by the family), and the remaining two are primary sources, yet again poor for establishing verifiable information and certainly not indicative of notability.The WRENS have been extensively documented, yet not a single one of those books I just linked you even mentions Shelia Witton. 74,000 women served in the WRNS and over 6,000 in the WRCNS. Are you arguing we should have an article on every single women regardless of whether notability has been demonstrated? Eddie891 Talk Work 14:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At risk of being called a contrarian (and purely as a matter of personal opinion) I'd say that if someone sat down and banged out several thousand well-written, verifiable articles about people who weren't terribly important to the grander scheme of history, and none of these articles are in any way promotional/attack pages/POV pushing, and all of them constituted a more or less complete summary of what they did in the world, that would be good. I mean, it'd be educational, which is good, and there would be nothing bad about it I can think of (aside from there being another page for people to go on and change the short description to "shit fart", but they can also do that on Napoleon Bonaparte). I think the main reason to oppose such a thing is that, well, most articles that end up being AfD'd for GNG fails are innovative disruptive entrepreneurs, brilliant self-help gurus, award-winning local radio hosts, etc. where you have no hope of the information being helpful or accurate. If you want to say the actual policy itself is against me, well, it is, so that's fair. jp×g 15:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Ditto on what he said - I'd say that if someone sat down and banged out several thousand well-written, verifiable articles about people who weren't terribly important to the grander scheme of history, and none of these articles are in any way promotional/attack pages/POV pushing, and all of them constituted a more or less complete summary of what they did in the world, that would be good. I mean, it'd be educational, which is good - which points out that the entire body of 74,000 women code breakers at Bletchley Park as a group, could be described by this one example.CaptJayRuffins (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, because that logic would just lead to pages being created for any of the women codebreakers at Bletchley Park, just belonging to a notable group doesn't confer individual notability. Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - the sources look good, and this is an interesting biogrpahy. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources "look good"? The ones that don't even mention her or the relatively local, non-bylined obituaries? Eddie891 Talk Work 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been hoping that independent/reliable sources would emerge during this discussion to specifically verify Whitton's notability; otherwise there seems to be a risk of WP:SYNTH with the existing sources. Per WP:SUSTAINED, "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability," and "a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it."" There are higher-profile WRENs who would more clearly meet the notability guidelines, and the news and museum sources in this article could be incorporated into the WRENs article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2021 (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.