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. Seems like later in the discussion, some uncontested references to her were provided. Move or merge discussions can be had if there are still questions about whether the coverage is about the individual rather than the unit/photo Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing any real evidence of notability. A few. A lot of trivial (in the extreme, most being just a photo anbd a caption, the same photo and caption) mentions, a primary source used twice ()but form two separate places, one facebook), and at least one source that does not even mention her. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She did not, her unit did. If she did provide the citation. Note the above has been altered since I replied to it, to answer the new version. Members of units are not considered notable for an award awarded tho their unit, they are only notable if it was an award made to them alone.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect name and Merge into WASP article. Otherwise, not anymore notable than the other WASP members who were courageous, as mentioned above. Kierzek (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her WASP career is not currently notable compared to other WASP members. However she stands out from the other WASP members because of the picture. Samples currently online:
She is recognizable compared to other WASP members, she stands out from the rest in some way, which is in spirit the meaning of notability, and in technical terms per WP:GNG she has had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- GreenC18:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps it's the photo that is notable. Is this the case of back formation of an article - a person's name appears in Wikipedia leads to a brief article and then further facts uncovered and wrapped around the stub to build up its size. The initial article creation seems to have been centred on the image. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - courage or lack of articles for other WASP pilots should not be deciding factors. Per User:GreenC, she appears to have been chosen for the photograph and her story has captured attention and now again of interest perhaps because she was among the few that lived into another era - the new murals that have led to greater interest should make the article important enough to have here. We do not AfD articles like August Landmesser for similar reasons. Shyamal (talk) 08:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've worked on a number of WASP biographies. It's true that not all WASP were notable. Some served and then went back to quiet lives. Others continued to be in the media for various reasons. In this case, the photo of Gardner is iconic and there should be an article. There's enough info about her to write a good bio and the improvement to the article should be commended. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's important to remember that notability — the existence of in-depth coverage, specifically about the subject, in multiple reliable sources — is different from significance, and may occur for entirely contingent and insignificant reasons. In this case, it appears that being a WASP is not alone enough for notability but that the subject achieved notability because of her appearance in the publicity photo. We don't have to judge whether that's a significant accomplishment in order to recognize that the sources in the article clearly demonstrate a pass of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect name and Merge into WASP article or refactor as an article about the photo. There are many benchmarks of notability. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail". "The first to ..." ect are benchmarks of notability, but not the benchmark adopted by WP. The photo is iconic and notable but does not necessarily confer notability on the subject. We have an article for the V-J Day in Times Square but not for the sailor, George Mendonsa. Many of the comments to "keep" refer to the notability of the photo and even acknowledge that Gardner is not/may not be noatable independent of the photo. Of the Life article, the subject is the crash and not Gardner more specifically - it does not address Gardner "directly and in detail". The Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to the unit and not Gardner, except as a part of the unit. Most unfortunately, the article also has the impression of being something of a WP:COAT for recognition of WASPS - with 7 references (and 6 of the first 7) referring to this. That there is strong support to keep the article suggests that there is something wrong with WP:GNG. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cinderella157 What a strange thing to say, "That there is strong support to keep the article suggests that there is something wrong with WP:GNG" It undoubtedly says the opposite...But thanks for voting. Lubbad85 (☎) 01:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not so strange. Many of the comments to keep infer notability through the notability of the photo. The mention of Gardner here is only passing: this reference in American Women and Flight Since 1940. It is difficult to see that Gardner meets the criteria of WP:GNG (see parts I quoted above). The evidence offered, such as the reference in American Women and Flight Since 1940, appears quite weak (IMO). Yet there is strong support to keep - despite this. Hence my observation. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if not "definitely" the sailor, his association with the photo is mentioned in multiple reliable sources - including articles on his death eg and this search The Greta Zimmer Friedman attributes the kiss to Mendonsa too? It may not be a perfect example but it serves the purpose, I think. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Note for HEYers - WP:REFBOMBing the article with lots of sources with passing mentions (or with no mentions at all) does not help !voters at AfD assess this (and is an indication, actually, of lack of notability). Subject is dead, so no BLP concerns nor is PROMO a big issue (given she's been dead for a few years). The photograph itself is possibly notable per itself (and having a Photograph of Elizabeth L. Gardner seems silly (we could - but it would end up being the same thing - describing the individual in the photo - so might as well have have the bio if its one individual)). There does seem to be some coverage e.g. -rrstar, life, this book. There's a bunch of snippet view hits in google-books (some of them from periodic war-time newspapers). Sourcing level here isn't great - but there does seem to be quite a bit of it. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to one of our cited sources, she was featured in a "1991 special section of New York Newsday". I don't have access to it, however. 7&6=thirteen (☎)16:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
