680:). 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.
515:(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
645:. 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.
873:
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
877:). 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.
523:(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.
744:
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
872:
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
939:
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
782:
Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics
Knowledge (XXG) 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 §
749:
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
233:
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.
479:
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 's birth, personal life, education and
844:
841:
722:
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?
1032:," and "a topic is "notable" in Knowledge (XXG) 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
806:: 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
202:
623:
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.
847:
480:
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.
783:
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.
776:
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,
960:
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.
541:"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.
163:
196:
1020:
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
340:
312:
255:
95:
136:
131:
140:
110:
423:
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.
750:
tens of millions of people. yet we don’t have articles on all of them because our notability standards are what make
Knowledge (XXG) an encyclopedia.
123:
326:
297:
444:, it now appears that there is a specific "possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."
822:, yet again poor for establishing verifiable information and certainly not indicative of notability.The WRENS have been extensively documented (
1033:
915:
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.
942:- 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.
520:
772:
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
217:
184:
90:
83:
17:
677:
672:
I have added two more sources: one that references codebreakers at
Bletchley Park as "arguably the first role for women in tech" (
673:
63:
794:
706:
1006:
861:
757:
265:
241:
104:
100:
854:. Are you arguing we should have an article on every single women regardless of whether notability has been demonstrated?
178:
127:
904:
592:
1045:
1012:
999:
Which of the sources "look good"? The ones that don't even mention her or the relatively local, non-bylined obituaries?
990:
969:
951:
927:
889:
867:
851:
798:
763:
735:
710:
689:
660:
633:
609:
583:
550:
532:
503:
489:
467:
453:
432:
414:
397:
380:
352:
332:
320:
303:
291:
271:
247:
65:
1064:
40:
405:
I added a source to the article that includes support for notability and a list of books and memoirs about the WRENS.
174:
815:
803:
790:
702:
458:
You still haven't explained what you believe makes her notable, nor provided SIGCOV in RS to establish notability.
516:
786:
224:
947:
119:
71:
940:
complete summary of what they did in the world, that would be good. I mean, it'd be educational, which is good
519:(CBC Digital Archives), but Whitton's role specifically appears to have additional notability as a "coder" in
579:
316:
287:
393:
283:
1025:
1060:
823:
36:
777:
190:
512:
61:
819:
476:
364:
965:
943:
546:
499:
463:
428:
376:
210:
811:
574:: Added two more reference sources profiling her, I'm doing some research this week to find more.
441:
1041:
874:
685:
629:
575:
528:
485:
449:
410:
348:
1021:
986:
838:
537:
Yes they did their job, just like everyone else, but there is nothing that shows that
Whitton
389:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1059:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
923:
655:
642:
620:
368:
53:
676:) and another that discusses the accomplishments of codebreaking WRENS at Bletchley Park (
513:'We were sworn to secrecy': Canadian women share stories of their efforts to help win WWII
56:
832:
829:
826:
961:
885:
835:
731:
542:
495:
459:
424:
372:
846:), yet not a single one of those books I just linked you even mentions Shelia Witton.
773:
1037:
1000:
855:
751:
681:
625:
524:
481:
445:
406:
344:
259:
235:
982:
603:
157:
517:
Queen
Elizabeth specifically called on Canadian women to help with the war effort
919:
741:
646:
879:
725:
768:
My opinion of the point of notability is that it's a test to see if it's
440:
Due to the list of references in the source I added to the article, per
814:
is not indicative of notability, is a poor source by itself and was
785:
This appears, to me, to be encyclopaedic content which meets the
1055:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
981:- the sources look good, and this is an interesting biogrpahy.
286:. Like Eddie, open to changing !vote if other sources emerge.
907:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
595:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
494:
What "important role" in what "significant military event"?
719:
153:
149:
145:
209:
918:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
601:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
223:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1067:). No further edits should be made to this page.
339:Note: This discussion has been included in the
311:Note: This discussion has been included in the
254:Note: This discussion has been included in the
341:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
313:list of Ontario-related deletion discussions
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
338:
310:
256:list of Women-related deletion discussions
253:
745:is by creating and improving articles on
740:the users who have !voted ‘keep’ since
781:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
816:probably submitted by the family
810:. For context, an obituary like
96:Introduction to deletion process
1030:lagging indicator of notability
1024:with the existing sources. Per
848:74,000 women served in the WRNS
1:
818:), and the remaining two are
415:19:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
398:11:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
388:no indication of notability.
381:03:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
353:02:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
333:02:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
304:02:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
272:02:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
248:02:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
1046:00:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
1013:22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
991:22:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
970:10:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
952:14:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
928:13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
890:15:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
868:14:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
799:13:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
787:Knowledge (XXG):Five pillars
764:12:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
736:11:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
711:05:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
690:04:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
661:03:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
634:19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
66:00:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
610:01:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
584:18:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
551:03:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
533:00:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
504:03:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
490:16:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
468:03:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
454:18:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
433:06:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1084:
521:The Battle of the Atlantic
937:Ditto on what he said -
284:my earlier reply to Eddie
1057:Please do not modify it.
1028:, "Knowledge (XXG) is a
120:Sheila Elizabeth Whitton
72:Sheila Elizabeth Whitton
32:Please do not modify it.
852:over 6,000 in the WRCNS
804:ProcrastinatingReader
791:ProcrastinatingReader
703:ProcrastinatingReader
84:Articles for deletion
678:Smithsonian Magazine
394:click to talk to me
913:Relisting comment:
875:Napoleon Bonaparte
808:The Globe and Mail
317:AleatoryPonderings
288:AleatoryPonderings
1011:
930:
866:
762:
612:
355:
335:
274:
270:
246:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
1075:
1003:
917:
910:
908:
858:
754:
653:
606:
600:
598:
596:
262:
238:
228:
227:
213:
161:
143:
81:
34:
1083:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1065:deletion review
1009:
931:
903:
901:
864:
820:primary sources
760:
718:per BD and the
647:
613:
604:
591:
589:
268:
244:
170:
134:
118:
115:
78:
75:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1081:
1079:
1070:
1069:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1015:
1005:
994:
993:
975:
974:
973:
972:
955:
954:
944:CaptJayRuffins
916:
911:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
860:
756:
738:
713:
695:
694:
693:
692:
664:
663:
636:
599:
588:
587:
586:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
418:
417:
400:
383:
357:
356:
336:
307:
306:
276:
275:
264:
240:
231:
230:
167:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1080:
1068:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1053:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1016:
1014:
1010:
1008:
1002:
998:
997:
996:
995:
992:
988:
984:
980:
977:
976:
971:
967:
963:
959:
958:
957:
956:
953:
949:
945:
941:
936:
933:
932:
929:
925:
921:
914:
909:
906:
891:
888:
887:
882:
881:
876:
871:
870:
869:
865:
863:
857:
853:
849:
845:
842:
839:
836:
833:
830:
827:
824:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
802:
801:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:applies imv:
779:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
761:
759:
753:
748:
743:
739:
737:
734:
733:
728:
727:
721:
717:
714:
712:
708:
704:
700:
697:
696:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
668:
667:
666:
665:
662:
659:
658:
654:
652:
651:
644:
640:
637:
635:
631:
627:
622:
618:
615:
614:
611:
608:
607:
597:
594:
585:
581:
577:
576:John Cummings
573:
570:
569:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
535:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
511:This source:
510:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
493:
492:
491:
487:
483:
478:
474:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
436:
435:
434:
430:
426:
422:
421:
420:
419:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
399:
395:
391:
387:
384:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
337:
334:
330:
329:
324:
323:
318:
314:
309:
308:
305:
301:
300:
295:
294:
289:
285:
281:
278:
277:
273:
269:
267:
261:
257:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
243:
237:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
172:Find sources:
168:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1056:
1054:
1029:
1026:WP:SUSTAINED
1017:
1004:
978:
938:
934:
912:
902:
884:
878:
859:
807:
769:
755:
746:
730:
724:
715:
698:
669:
656:
649:
648:
638:
616:
602:
590:
571:
538:
508:
472:
437:
402:
390:Peacemaker67
385:
360:
327:
321:
298:
292:
279:
263:
239:
232:
220:
214:
206:
199:
193:
187:
181:
171:
77:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
778:WP:NOTPAPER
720:bang-up job
197:free images
477:WP:SOLDIER
365:WP:SOLDIER
58:Ritchie333
1061:talk page
1036:article.
962:Mztourist
543:Mztourist
496:Mztourist
460:Mztourist
442:WP:NEXIST
425:Mztourist
373:Mztourist
37:talk page
1063:or in a
1038:Beccaynr
1022:WP:SYNTH
1001:Eddie891
905:Relisted
856:Eddie891
770:possible
752:Eddie891
701:per BD.
682:Beccaynr
674:Guardian
626:Kges1901
593:Relisted
525:Beccaynr
482:Beccaynr
446:Beccaynr
407:Beccaynr
345:TJMSmith
260:Eddie891
236:Eddie891
164:View log
105:glossary
39:or in a
1018:Comment
983:Bearian
747:notable
670:Comment
605:MBisanz
539:herself
509:Comment
473:Comment
438:Comment
203:WP refs
191:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
920:Daniel
742:BD2412
650:BD2412
643:WP:IAR
621:WP:GNG
619:Fails
617:Delete
386:Delete
369:WP:GNG
363:fails
361:Delete
280:Delete
175:Google
141:delete
54:WP:HEY
1034:WRENs
218:JSTOR
179:books
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
1042:talk
1007:Work
987:talk
979:Keep
966:talk
948:talk
935:Keep
924:talk
862:Work
850:and
812:this
795:talk
774:WP:N
758:Work
716:Keep
707:talk
699:Keep
686:talk
641:per
639:Keep
630:talk
580:talk
572:Keep
547:talk
529:talk
500:talk
486:talk
475:Per
464:talk
450:talk
429:talk
411:talk
403:Keep
377:talk
367:and
349:talk
282:per
266:Work
242:Work
211:FENS
185:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
50:keep
328:!!!
325:) (
322:???
299:!!!
296:) (
293:???
225:TWL
162:– (
1044:)
989:)
968:)
950:)
926:)
880:jp
843:,
840:,
837:,
831:,
828:,
825:,
797:)
789:.
726:jp
709:)
688:)
632:)
582:)
549:)
531:)
502:)
488:)
466:)
452:)
431:)
413:)
396:)
379:)
371:.
351:)
343:.
331:)
315:.
302:)
258:.
205:)
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
52:.
1040:(
985:(
964:(
946:(
922:(
886:g
883:×
834:,
793:(
732:g
729:×
705:(
684:(
657:T
628:(
578:(
545:(
527:(
498:(
484:(
462:(
448:(
427:(
409:(
392:(
375:(
347:(
319:(
290:(
229:)
221:·
215:·
207:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
177:(
169:(
166:)
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.