539:- I copied the article content from the preceding AFD, but won't be able to do anything with it -- not my bailiwick, no sources, etc. However, I will note that any historical figure of 150 years who has survived by name in a few list-type sources is likely sourced elsewhere, and especially given the reams of scholarship on the US Civil War -- really, rivers of ink have been spilled on this -- I would imagine the article could ultimately be sourced. There's no deadline, and so my inclination would be to keep this one tagged, add it to relevant wikiprojects, and hang in there. There's no deadline and no compelling reason to delete it -- no BLP issues, no vanity concerns, no spam concerns, no vandalism or troll-magnet issues. --
503:, that is a list not of women who are notable, but of women with Knowledge (XXG) articles. Notice that every line links somewhere? The reason she's not listed there isn't (necessarily) a lack of notability, but that nobody's added her since she got her own article. Anyway, I stand by my "vote" of VERY WEAK Keep, but absolutely agree that this is not enough currently to keep around; I just would like to see someone improve it drastically (and if not, PROD it in a few months).
155:
enough, granted) to the article so others can use them (and back-reference them through their references). The "woman who dressed as a man in order to serve her country" is a significant situation itself (I said significant, not notable), and I think that this article and others like it could have
660:
Don't thank me - I've made rather a bloomer. The footnote in question actually covers a discussion of two different women discovered before seeing combat, and only the last of the references is to Mary Burns. I've reworked the article and I think it's now about as full as it's ever going to be.
227:
really talks about weight of information within a particular article; information tending to be given undue weight in a way that creates a non-neutral POV. Concerns about a more notable topic not yet being included while less notable topics are included are not undue weight -- in some instances
156:
potential. I'd like to see this end, ideally, in a "no consensus" for the time being and, if the article isn't improved within 3-6 months, then PROD or AfD it out then. There could be potential here; that's really all I'm saying.
617:
613:
598:
173:. I think it would be a shame to lose this information- someone whose name is still known after all this time... Perhaps there would be an appropriate merge target? Something like
87:
82:
114:
91:
499:(and series...at least fill them!), I can see where a one-sentence by two-reference "article" could be seen as a legitimate keep. As for the inclusion or exclusion in the
74:
315:
624:"masquerading as a man" is a problem, but my own feeling is that one-off notability still being “noted” over 100 years later is quite sufficient for our purposes. --
121:
We'll try this again. Non-notable, no references except a brief mention in a couple books. The previous version that survived AfD had several comments that
500:
340:
199:
255:
206:
and I think this is definitely it. As the sources show there were many more significant instances of disguised women soldiers who actually fought. --
202:. This is so minor (she never fought) and the sources are so brief that I'm reluctant to have a whole article. There's a point at which this is
78:
17:
691:
670:
655:
633:
583:
548:
531:
512:
455:
424:
400:
373:
352:
330:
297:
279:
237:
214:
190:
165:
142:
70:
62:
56:
488:
178:
49:
247:
492:
449:
394:
273:
136:
709:
36:
258:. How many individual articles of two sentences do we need for this subject? Shouldn't this encyclopedia stick to
708:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
579:
508:
161:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
574:
and other tags could garner attention and help of others. That's why I think keep is warranted (though weak).
174:
666:
629:
463:- While I agree with Satyr about the notability and one-sentence-ness, I do feel the need to point out that
48:, I highly recommend for this article to be merged somewhere though, especially in the should be article of
348:
602:
that in its turn cites 5 contemporary newspaper reports and a history book from 1911 (Ethel Alice Hurn,
369:
620:. She clearly meets “multiple sources over time”. That she’s notable only for being sent to prison for
687:
575:
504:
186:
157:
662:
651:
625:
560:
said in a lucid and eloquent manner what I try and fail to say in my unlucid, uneloquent way. No
544:
324:
293:
233:
211:
262:
people? This woman didn't even make it to fight but was discovered before the company left! --
224:
527:
445:
415:
390:
344:
269:
132:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
203:
476:
365:
496:
464:
568:
683:
182:
435:
361:
285:
259:
152:
647:
557:
540:
289:
229:
207:
523:
440:
385:
264:
127:
108:
53:
564:
reason to delete, and there probably are / ought to be some sources out there.
468:
122:
438:
requires "significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources. --
343:, which presently only includes women who actually took part in fighting. --
383:: You realize she's mentioned in one sentence in each of those sources? --
228:
they're systemic bias, but not in the way you're suggesting, I think. --
151:- As in Very Weak. I added a couple links (one of which is probably not
472:
608:. There’s slightly more detail in DeAnne Blanton and Lauren M. Cook’s
484:
284:
Hmm. That doesn't really work for me; it just seems like a straight
339:
I don't think that this woman was notable enough to be included in
597:. Having looked into it, I find that the article already cites a
288:
argument. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I think. --
610:
They Fought Like Demons: Women
Soldiers in the American Civil War
702:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
480:
256:
Category:Female wartime crossdressers in the
American Civil War
646:
better when folks have done research on the issue at hand. --
104:
100:
96:
642:
Thank you for this research! It makes *FD discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
467:. When Knowledge (XXG) routinely keeps pages like
360:, I see 2 secondary sources. That's the heart of
125:was notable, but no one spoke up for this person.
242:This could be considered UNDUE because there are
712:). No further edits should be made to this page.
522:unless someone can save this with improvement.
316:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
414:around. There is no lack of server space.
410:- 1 sentence in each is enough to keep a
341:Timeline of women in 19th century warfare
200:Timeline of women in 19th century warfare
465:the bar for notability is set really low
314:: This debate has been included in the
248:Category:Female wartime crossdressers
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
612:(LSU Press, 2002). ISBN 0807128066,
223:Query -- How is this undue weight?
24:
71:Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier)
63:Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier)
682:, sources indicate notability.
489:Victory Boulevard (Los Angeles)
179:Women in the American Civil War
50:Women in the American Civil War
1:
493:Carolina Renaissance Festival
692:03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
57:18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
671:14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
656:17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
634:09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
584:03:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
549:03:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
532:22:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
513:16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
456:15:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
425:10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
401:01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
374:23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
353:22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
331:18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
298:07:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
280:15:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
238:03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
215:17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
191:17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
166:16:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
143:16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
729:
604:Wisconsin Women in the War
705:Please do not modify it.
175:Missouri Militia Cavalry
32:Please do not modify it.
495:, and empty pages like
622:enlisting illegally
196:Merge and redirect
487:, and stubs like
453:
423:
422:
398:
333:
328:
319:
277:
246:people listed in
140:
720:
707:
573:
567:
501:timeline article
477:Fish of Oklahoma
454:
443:
421:
420:
418:
399:
388:
322:
321:—User:Ceyockey (
320:
310:
278:
267:
141:
130:
112:
94:
34:
728:
727:
723:
722:
721:
719:
718:
717:
716:
710:deletion review
703:
571:
565:
439:
416:
384:
263:
126:
85:
69:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
726:
724:
715:
714:
697:
695:
694:
676:
675:
674:
673:
658:
637:
636:
586:
576:VigilancePrime
551:
534:
516:
515:
505:VigilancePrime
458:
428:
427:
404:
403:
377:
376:
355:
334:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
218:
217:
193:
168:
158:VigilancePrime
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
725:
713:
711:
706:
700:
699:
698:
693:
689:
685:
681:
678:
677:
672:
668:
664:
663:Paularblaster
659:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
640:
639:
638:
635:
631:
627:
626:Paularblaster
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
605:
600:
596:
592:
591:
587:
585:
581:
577:
570:
563:
559:
555:
552:
550:
546:
542:
538:
535:
533:
529:
525:
521:
518:
517:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
459:
457:
451:
447:
442:
437:
433:
430:
429:
426:
419:
413:
409:
406:
405:
402:
396:
392:
387:
382:
379:
378:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
332:
327:
326:
317:
313:
309:
308:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:
281:
275:
271:
266:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
240:
239:
235:
231:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
167:
163:
159:
154:
150:
147:
146:
145:
144:
138:
134:
129:
124:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
704:
701:
696:
679:
643:
621:
609:
603:
601:
594:
589:
588:
561:
553:
536:
519:
460:
434:: Actually,
431:
417:Exit2DOS2000
411:
407:
380:
357:
345:Nick Dowling
336:
323:
311:
251:
243:
225:Undue weight
204:undue weight
195:
170:
148:
120:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
520:Weak delete
479:(a list!),
366:Cube lurker
250:and anothe
562:compelling
469:Fuzzy dice
436:Notability
325:talk to me
123:Mary Burns
684:Everyking
595:Weak keep
183:J Milburn
171:Weak keep
149:Weak Keep
648:Lquilter
618:page 124
558:Lquilter
541:Lquilter
450:contribs
395:contribs
290:Lquilter
274:contribs
230:Lquilter
208:Dhartung
137:contribs
115:View log
614:page 31
554:Comment
537:Comment
524:Greswik
473:Cooties
461:Comment
441:SatyrTN
432:Comment
386:SatyrTN
381:Comment
265:SatyrTN
260:Notable
128:SatyrTN
88:protect
83:history
599:source
569:Expand
485:Vorpal
337:Delete
92:delete
54:Secret
497:32 AH
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
688:talk
680:Keep
667:talk
652:talk
644:much
630:talk
616:and
590:keep
580:talk
545:talk
528:talk
509:talk
491:and
481:Dibs
446:talk
412:stub
408:Keep
391:talk
370:talk
362:WP:N
358:Keep
349:talk
312:Note
294:talk
286:WP:N
270:talk
234:talk
212:Talk
187:talk
162:talk
153:WP:R
133:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
364:.--
318:.
254:in
198:to
177:or
113:– (
690:)
669:)
661:--
654:)
632:)
593:.
582:)
572:}}
566:{{
556:-
547:)
530:)
511:)
483:,
475:,
471:,
448:/
393:/
372:)
351:)
329:)
296:)
272:/
244:42
236:)
210:|
189:)
181:?
164:)
135:/
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
52:.
686:(
665:(
650:(
628:(
606:)
578:(
543:(
526:(
507:(
452:)
444:(
397:)
389:(
368:(
347:(
292:(
276:)
268:(
252:6
232:(
185:(
160:(
139:)
131:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.