Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeline Blair

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Blair

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Many of the sources are not about the subject, most appear to be trivial mentions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources comply with guidelines. Her presence on the USS Arizona is even recorded by Marshall Trimble, the Arizona’s official historian. --John B123 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While there isn't a lot of modern coverage, I say the sources seem enough. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-direct name to the article on USS Arizona (BB-39), where a very brief mention (or footnote) can be made; otherwise, very trivial per WP:NOTNEWS. Note: if kept, it should be changed to the name of the event, as the woman is not notable; without considering other factors (here, being the event). Kierzek (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge article into USS Arizona (BB-39).Crook1 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where is the evidence that she is still alive today? She would be 113 years old by now and all those who knew her are in all likelihood no longer alive today. She had accomplished nothing for humanity. --Ernesztina (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting, well written and sourced. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes V, OR, NPOV. Seems suitably interesting to be encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to pass off work onto anyone else, but I don't have time to read one of the sources I found (Madeline Blair, "By a Girl Stowaway Who Lived 5 Weeks on the Battleship Arizona", San Francisco Examiner, May 27, 1928, page 4, 20, 22). I added it to the page, but if anyone wants to look through it, they might find something more to be added to the story - with the caveat that these are Blair's own words, more or less, and might not be best treated as 100% accurate. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage over time in newspapers. As for Ernesztina's comment: you don't have to "do" anything to be notable. See the Kardashians and other socialites. I also suspect that since there are multiple names she went under, we don't have her real name, so we can't hunt down her obit. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion would be against the rules of notability. Markvs88 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant and enduring coverage in reliable sources -- newspapers are fine for this. I am wondering what on earth "Delete Where is the evidence that she is still alive today?" has to do with a deletion discussion. Notability is not based on temporary fame nor on being alive today. This lady is most likely dead, but she appears to be the subject of detailed coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. MPS1992 (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting and sourced Lyndaship (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The repercussions appear to have been significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting, and conforms to notability requirements. Broichmore (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above; interesting and sufficiently sourced. Tupsumato (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Arizona (BB-39) - this strikes me as in the spirit of WP:BLP1E, even if she's likely long-dead - those who are arguing that a few newspaper articles constitutes enough coverage to justify an article would do well to read that link. Do we have sources that describe her in any aspect of her life besides the incident in question? If yes, then yes, we ought to have an article on her, but if not, the answer is equally straightforward. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Tupsumato says. It seems to have been notable at the time, and notability does not attentuate with age. Kablammo (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to pass notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks notable enough to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Continuing book coverage. Very detailed newspaper coverage. The affair resulted with 23 sailors being sentenced to 10 years (each) of jail time - so far from something passing. Possibly should be named for the event and not the person (BIO1E vs. NCRIME/NEVENT). Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see continuing book coverage? I see a handful of mention in regard to the ship or its officers. Qwirkle (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree completely with Icewhiz, especially about the article needing a new name - the incident appears to be highly notable, but Ms Blair is unlikely to be notable in isolation from it. As the article is focused on the incident, I think that it's viable. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single event, person not otherwiseknown, much less noteworthy. Event doesnt rise above maybe a line or two in the Arizona article. Many of the arguments above do not make a case for a separate article on her, at best for coverage of the incident. Qwirkle (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage included in the article, and there was widespread coverage in 1924, at the time of the incident and during the sailors' courts martial - more references could be added from that time. Coverage is also sustained, as the existing references show. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:37, 7 March 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.