Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Sue Fulton

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 no consensus. I can understand the point of view by the "delete" side, but much of it is only assertions of non-notability. A number of sources have been provided that cover Mrs Fulton in a non-trivial manner, and while it is arguable that this is more news coverage than encyclopedic coverage, they do come from different events. As such, I cannot read a consensus to delete here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Sue Fulton

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

Person without an especially strong or well-referenced claim of notability; she's been on the boards of various organizations, with no particularly substantive assertion that she accomplished anything unique in those roles, and was part of the first same-sex couple ever to get married at one particular facility — but neither of those is a reason why a person should have a permanent standalone biographical article in an encyclopedia, as opposed to just having her name mentioned in the articles where the mention of her name might be relevant. Delete unless more substantive evidence of actual encyclopedic notability can be located than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really cannot see any reason whatsoever why this person would be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of Notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Part of first West Point class to admit women. Founder of two organisations. First same-sex couple to marry at the Cadet Chapel at West Point? What more do we want, mermaids? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those three things are notability claims that actually pass our inclusion rules. And a person doesn't pass WP:GNG just because you assert that they did X, Y or Z, and source it only to a single blog post of a length that would be called a blurb if it were appearing in a newspaper — we require substantive and ongoing coverage in reliable sources. So what more do we want? Real sources supporting a real claim of notability, that's what. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check found plenty of reliable sources. New York Times, Huffington Post Wall Street Journal. Ongoing coverage is not required. Plenty of notable subjects do not have ongoing coverage. (Usually because they are dead.) These are claims to notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even dead notable people don't actually cease to be the subject of any new coverage — new biographies can still be written, new media analysis of their sustained influence on how things are today can still happen, and on and so forth. That said, "ongoing" doesn't necessarily mean that coverage has to continue right up to the present day regardless of how long ago a person died; it merely means that the coverage has to be sustained over a meaningful length of time. That period of time may have ended or it may not have, but that's not part of the test either way — what matters is that the coverage constitutes much more than one or two small, isolated human interest/WP:BLP1E blips, and that it supports a substantive and genuinely meaningful reason why the person warrants permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the multiple notable events left the article above WP:BLP1E. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why is being "part of the first same-sex couple to marry at the Cadet Chapel at West Point" notable enough for an article? I don't think even being part of the first same sex couple recognized as marrying in New York would make someone notable, but this case clearly not. Nor do we have articles on all the other women in West Point's first class with women. This is not the type of things that pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage identified by User:Hawkeye7 above. These things confer notability because reliable and independent sources covered them. Whether you or I think that what Fulton has done is important or noteworthy is irrelevant, the fact that reliable sources have documented it is what counts here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What brings her notability? What makes her so attractive? West Point in the 80's? (Women were accepted to top military schools in the Atatürk era Turkey (1923 on) and the first of those batches retired as coronels in the 1960's.) Or her same-sex marriage? So common in many Western countries nowadays. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And dozens of men were Vice President before Joe Biden. Notability comes from coverage in reliable sources, not from being first. This is the Wikipedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to what has been mentioned, I provide these;
Coverage of Marriage;

- ABCNews

- Yahoo News

- USAToday

- Fox News Insider

Appointment to Board of Visitors of Military Academy;

OutServe-SLDN;

- WashingtonBlade

- Mentioned in passing here

delete Being "first married" is hardly a high personal accomplishment; just case of luck. No other aspects on=f notability; WP:SINGLEEVENT. -No.Altenmann >t 15:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, there are other aspects of notability, including presidential appointment to the Board of Visitors of Military Academy, founding of OutServe and SLDN, and the first West Point Class. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, I agree with User:Hawkeye7's statement of fact about ABCNews and onward. Just doing a bit of research I've turned up multiple independent sources. Notability's main point, in the Wikipedia sense, deals with whether an article can be expanded via multiple independent reliable sources, which this subject has. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2014 (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.