Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances M. Vega

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. This required a bit of pondering, but in the end, policy based rationales strongly lean to delete. Rationales to keep are much less convincing and several are more emotionally based rather than policy based. In determining whether an individual passes GNG, including SIGCOV, we have to remove emotion from the discussion and look at what exists in the reliable sources, and in this case, those seeking to delete put forth a much stronger argument that there simply isn't enough significant coverage (ie: more than just listings or being "first") to pass the bar of WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frances M. Vega

[edit]

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

Frances M. Vega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail WP:SOLDIER (first female Puerto Rican soldier killed in the Iraq War is not notable and we don't have a page for each of the other 15 killed in the same Chinook crash) and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Having a gate named after her isn't notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plaque honoring Vega, during a gate dedication ceremony held at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico
  • Keep - Why am I not surprised about this nomination which is based on an essay and not on an actual Wikipedia policy? This is supposedly an encyclopedia where editors are to share their knowledge about others with the world regardless of their color, race or place of origin. Being the "first" in my book is notable and letting the rest of the world know is sharing ones knowledge which is what Wikipedia is all about regardless of what an essay may state. The Main Gate at Fort Buchanan Army Base, which is a United States Federal military base, was named the SPC Frances M. Vega gate in her honor. Vega is also listed on the 13th Sustainment Command memorial, dedicated at Fort Hood, Texas, another Federal military base, on September 17, 2010. She is listed #4 of 106 total names of the soldiers who served with the 13th Sustainment Command (formerly known as the 13th Corps Support Command). Everybody here knows that some sources which were placed on articles written years ago may no longer exist and that it is a question of doing some research and citing the newly found sources. Tony the Marine (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG in my view. The incident itself doesn't appear to be notable, either. Intothatdarkness 15:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We don't require a list of every first type of soldier killed in whatever war. She hadn't really done anything to that point regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What? This is not about a notable incident! This is about a person whose sacrifice is notable enough that two United States Military Bases which belong to the United States Government have honored said person therefore, making her notable. These military bases are: 1. Fort Buchanan Army Base, whose main gate has been named after her; 2. Fort Hood Army Base in Texas who listed her on the 13th Sustainment Command memorial with a plaque. I ask my fellow editors, do you really think that a military base of the United States would honor her if she was not notable and deserving of the honors bestowed upon her? Tony the Marine (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also added additional sources to further support WP:GNG: Los Angeles Times reporting on the aftermath of the Chinook crash; a Fort Hood Sentinel report listing Vega as an OIF Hero with a brief description; and a U.S. Department of Defense news website specifically recognizing her as "the first female Puerto Rican soldier born in the United States to die in a war zone." Beccaynr (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear it was a military post office (which was her service specialty) on a base that was handed back to Iraq in 2011 and so no longer exists. Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be claar, it makes no difference, as it is an honor that isn't bestowed on just anyone, and thus sets her apart from everyone else, which is precisely the definition of notability. That said, I see no cite in the article supporting the claim, and we need to question whether or not it has an RS source, something I am doing concurrently here further below in this one edit. Mercy11 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, notability is established by SIGCOV in multiple RS, we don't decide what makes someone notable, the extent of coverage of them does.Mztourist (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. No one said that "notability isn't established by SIGCOV in multiple RS", that "we decide what makes someone notable", or that "notability isn't based on the extent of coverage." What is being said is that an attempt to downgrade her notability by striking down the validity of the US naming a PO after her just because the PO no longer exists is, at best, a failure to recognize the significance of the honor. Mercy11 (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, notability on Wikipedia is established by SIGCOV in multiple RS. An army post office is not an honor as you suggest. I realise that you and several other Users will do everything you can to sustain pages of Puerto Rican "heroes" but they can't be treated differently from anyone else.Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Objectively, it is DOD News, The Fort Hood Sentinel, and the recently-added El Morro making this distinction, and emphasizing Vega as a notable Puerto Rican in military history (DOD News), a notable Hispanic woman and OIF Hero (Fort Hood Sentinel), and as an example of "military women [who] proved to have a crucial role in the defense of our nation" and "paid the ultimate sacrifice." (El Morro). Beccaynr (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The LA Times article only mentions her name. It doesn't go into any detail about her, although it does for several other service members who were killed in the same crash. The first linked Fort Hood article doesn't describe her as an 'OIF Hero' and doesn't even mention her by name. The second one uses 'OIF Hero' as an article header and doesn't tie it specifically to her. The LA Times article might make for a weak 'keep' if we were talking about the shootdown itself, but it doesn't do anything in my view for this article. Intothatdarkness 15:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The LA Times article and The New York Times article I just added both seem important to include as context that supports notability; your comment about whether the incident is notable had seemed to support that, and per the reporting, at the time, it was the deadliest incident since major operations had been declared over in Iraq; at least two major news outlets covered it in depth and noted that Vega was one of the soldiers killed. The Fort Hood Sentinel article that is currently the second citation in the article has an 'OIF Heroes' header that is immediately followed by "Spc. Frances M. Vega" and a brief description, as well as a list of additional soldiers with brief descriptions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then perhaps the incident should have an article, and this be merged into it. She's listed first in the Fort Hood article because the deaths are sorted chronologically. I see no particular reason to single her out above the other 15 soldiers who were killed in the same incident, as Mztourist mentioned earlier. Intothatdarkness 16:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (eta) The link supposedly pointing to the dedication of the gate at Ft Buchanan goes to an archived biography of a National Guard general officer. There's no mention of the dedication at all. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Fort Hood Sentinel article says the list is "in keeping with our observance of Hispanic Heritage Month" and "Let’s not forget these brave women!" - that kind of recognition, as well as the US DOD recognition of Vega as "the first female Puerto Rican soldier born in the United States to die in a war zone," and her honors and awards, appears to create an objective basis for a stand-alone article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I still don't see anything especially notable here when it comes to her individually. Intothatdarkness 17:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that level of mention conveys notability, though, we should also have an article for Sgt Ernest Bucklew, who was killed in the same crash. According to the Fort Lee Traveller [[1]] he was the only 89-Bravo solider to be killed during OIF and had a corridor in their training facility dedicated in his honor. There may be others in the crash who had the same level of recognition, and at least Bucklew's family was interviewed in some of the cited articles. Intothatdarkness 17:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also the Associated Press article about Vega that was in the article before this AfD nom, which provides further support for WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, i.e. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Beccaynr (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One very brief story in AP isn't sufficient. Mztourist (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AP report includes information about the circumstances of Vega's death and burial, commentary from an Army spokeperson, information about her posthumous awards, as well as biographical information. In addition, there is in-depth coverage from the LAT and NYT about the Chinook crash that provides additional context to the AP report and helps develop the encyclopedic content in this article. Vega's honors and awards are documented in RS, including her posthumous Bronze Star and Purple Heart, as well as the gate named after her and the Army post office. In additional, several military-related publications specifically honor her, as noted above (DOD News, Fort Hood Sentinel, El Morro). All of this appears to support notability per WP:BASIC, which recognizes that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Beccaynr (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AP story is the only RS about her, the other stories are peripheral about the crash and then various primary US Govt sources about the gate etc. Once again a collection of low quality sources added together to try to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El Morro appears to specifically disclaim primary source status, because this is posted in the publication: "Contents of EL MORRO are not necessarily the official views of, or endorsed by, the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, Department of the Army or U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Buchanan," and the Fort Hood Sentinel article is an editorial. I also disagree about discounting the LAT and NYT coverage of the Chinook crash, because of the content it adds to this article and the demonstration it provides of the notable circumstances. Beccaynr (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The article states "The post office on Camp Victory North, located in Baghdad, Iraq, was renamed the Frances M. Vega Army Post Office in a dedication ceremony in 2005." Can someone, perhaps the editor who added that statement (Marine 69-71), provide a source for this? Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a reference from US Central Command about the Frances M. Vega Army Post Office, and how after the Post Office closed, a sign from the office was moved to the U.S. Army Adjutant General's Corps Museum in 2012. Beccaynr (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At Wikipedia we have a decades' long policy that local consensus doesn't trump Wikipedia community consensus. Any group of editors can write an essay for others to read but, when used in DN discussions, essays are nothing more than local consensus. Essays are so low in the Consensus totem pole that the WP:CONSENSUS policy itself picks on them by name ("no more status than an essay"). So, no, essays not only do not compare to WP:PG but, in fact, to even use the two in the same DN argument shows a gross misunderstanding of what drives Wikipedia. As such, the WP:SOLDIER essay isn't worth a dime here, and the guide that matters here is WP:GNG and, more precisely, WP:BIO, the guideline for notability of biographies.
That said, the article should be kept because it is well-sourced with sufficient RS cites. In addition, the US Govt named a PO after her and the US military honored her with her own plaque at a major US military base. It is precisely this sort of sourcing, accolades, and legacy what defines the bio notability guideline and not personal opinions like " 'the first female Puerto Rican soldier killed in the Iraq War' is not notable" or "we don't have a page for each of the other 15 killed in the same Chinook crash", when those facts are stated by the DOD, and are not original research by editors. Just as bad is the argument "having a gate named after her isn't notable", when the DN isn't about the notability of gates. Mercy11 (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Basic Criteria of WP:BIO, SIGCOV in multiple RS is required. Its strange that you say that WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant but then claim that the US Army (not Govt) naming a post office after her, putting up a plaque and naming a gate are relevant signs of notability - that is just substituting your own subjective criteria for the community consensus of SOLDIER and so is of no greater merit. Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Act I: "You say that WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant but then claim that the US Army naming a post office after her [is] relevant"............This is a beautiful example of the "False Exclusionary Disjunct" fallacy, namely, "If WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant, then the US Army naming a PO after her must also be irrelevant", which is just as logical as "If Fido is a 4-legged animal, then Fido must not be a dog":
  1. Fido is a 4-legged animal or Fido is a dog.
  2. Fido is a 4-legged animal.
  3. Therefore, Fido is not a dog.
Act II: Editors may be interested in how another group of editors has just determined they feel about the meaningless value of WP:SOLDIER --and how quickly it's making its way into the Decommissioning Bin, precisely because a few unlearned editors keep attempting to elevate it to part-of-the-Holy-Trinity status: Anyone interested, can go here.
Mercy11 (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic argument is a farce. Its clear that want to dismiss one set of notability criteria (SOLDIER) and then impose your own notability criteria of Post Offices and plaques. As I said read WP:BASIC because that is what is required for this and any BIO. I am fully aware of and actively participating in the Milhist discussion regarding SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if you don't understand logic; I suggest you read the "False exclusionary disjunct", which I wikilinked for you before hoping you would read; FED is a fallacy widely covered in Logic 101 courses. That was the whole point, that your entire response section starting "Read the Basic Criteria of..." was an FED fallacy and, thus, an illogical argument from you. You will need to think of something else to attack my Keep arguments. Mercy11 (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It's sort of barely notable. However, Wikipedia or part of Wikipedia has been wanting a lot more female biographies in the database. Probably not a lot of female Bronze Star winners either. They can't have it both ways. (It's also Black History month.) Female deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were unusual with about 20 times as many men dying there, although I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere. Durindaljb (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What makes her more notable than Karina Lau, who was killed in the same crash and (according to a source as reliable as some in this article) was also awarded a bronze star? Or Ernest Bucklew (who received the same level of coverage as Vega)? Or the air crew? The military didn't honor Vega with a plaque...it was part of a unit memorial funded by the unit's association (according to the sources provided in the article). She's on there because she was part of that unit, along with a truck driver and a convoy gunner (again according to the article's linked source, which doesn't mention Vega by name at all). Most of the major RS used for this only mentions her name, and usually well-down in the article. In fact, the coverage I've seen suggests the incident itself is more notable than she was individually (as I mentioned before). Intothatdarkness 15:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the plaque honoring Vega that is linked above in this discussion as an image, it says, "Specialist Frances M. Vega epitomizes the character and patriotism of the countless American Soldiers who have answered the call to defend freedom." Beccaynr (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does not change the fact that the plaque was NOT provided by the military as was previously asserted, or the fact that the plaque is part of a larger unit-centered memorial. That statement is also the boilerplate language you see on many plaques. I understand the desire to honor those killed in the line of duty, but so far I have seen nothing in RS that says why SHE is more significant or notable than anyone else who was killed in that incident (aside from statements about her origin, but the other Puerto Rican who was killed in the crash doesn't seem to have an article, nor does the other female bronze star winner). I think an argument (although possibly a weak one) could be made that the incident itself is notable and deserving of an article, but I remain unconvinced that Vega herself meets that bar. Intothatdarkness 17:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the plaque says it is from the Installation Management Command, so it does appear to be provided by the military. It is also not clear to me how this is related to a larger memorial, and even if it was, how this specific recognition of Vega isn't relevant to her notability, particularly in the context of her other honors, specific recognition by the military, and the coverage in independent, reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source used in the article says specifically the memorial was funded and provided by the unit association (and the article's claim she's listed number four isn't supported by the linked source). I see you're referring to the gate plaque, and I thought you were talking about the 13th ESC memorial. And as Mztourist has pointed out, the coverage of her specifically is very limited in RS (and was nonexistent in at least one source used). Accuracy is important, and there seems to be a lack of concern about that here. And I remain unconvinced that her notability is demonstrated in RS. Intothatdarkness 17:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the National Guard biography reference you mentioned above, it has been removed from the article and relaced with a reference from El Morro, which discusses the gate. References are needed for the additional honors, but the 13th ESC memorial may be less relevant when compared to the distinct honors and recognition from the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, military base gate, military post office, and recognition by the military (and commentary) for which specific RS already have been found. Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - plenty of coverage on different reliable sources attest to her notability.Antonio Mr. Unreliable Martin (que paso?) 22:23, 7 February, 2021 (UTC)
  • Soft Keep. Meets gng, though barely. Also - as to the argument that we don't have a page for each of the other 15 killed in the same Chinook crash, who cares? Otherstuffexists is not an argument to be accorded weight. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet GNG at all. At the rate we're going with these articles, the first "non-binary Irish person" killed in war will be the subject of a WP article. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added information to the article from a Stars and Stripes reference that discusses Vega in the context of female participation in the military generally and the Iraq war specifically, which provides further objective support for her notability, at minimum per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (and similarly, I added information from a Chicago Tribune reference. Beccaynr (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's well developed arguments, mainly no SIGCOV; also WP:SOLDIER is not just any random essay. I oppose the interpretation of notability conventions held by Mercy11. Project-level techniques of identifying notability are very helpful for determining the best application of an SNG in specific context, and have strong consensus. — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:SOLDIER, "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article," and that does appear to apply to this article. There is an Early life and Education section that includes details about her birth and family from the Associated Press, as well as information about the specific and general context of her military career sourced to the Associated Press, Stars and Stripes, and The Chicago Tribune. In the Death section, there is additional information about her military career sourced from the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, and her posthumous Bronze Star and Purple Heart are sourced to the Associated Press. In the Legacy section, her military career continued to serve as an inspiration, in the specific honors she received by having a military post office named after her (sourced to U.S. Central Command related to the sign being moved to a museum because it was the last active military post office in Iraq), and a gate at a military base named after her (sourced to El Morro), with a plaque that specifically honors her for epitomizing "the character and patriotism of the countless American Soldiers who have answered the call to defend freedom." I think the sources in the article about the circumstances of her military career help provide encyclopedic content as to why the military chose to honor her, and it is more than for simply being the "first female Puerto Rican soldier killed in the Iraq War." Per WP:HEY, this article has been expanded and updated to make Vega's notability more clear, per WP:BASIC and WP:SOLDIER. Beccaynr (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should read this current discussion about SOLDIER and whether or not it should even be used in deletion discussions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#rfc as you will see the consensus is that GNG/BASIC is all important. Her awards do not meet #1 of WP:ANYBIO and she still lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS and so HEY does not apply here. Mztourist (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a prime del argument — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I believe that the statement "first female soldier of Puerto Rican descent to have died in a war zone" is a sufficient claim of significance to keep this article. This is helped by various commemorative activities. Sourcing is on the weak side, but still okay. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes first female Puerto Rican soldier any more significant than any other female soldier from anywhere else dying in a war zone? Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right; I've struck my vote, but remain neutral on keep/delete. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But what if a subjective focus on 'first female Puerto Rican soldier' is a strawperson, and Vega's notability is actually based on WP:ANYBIO, due to her significant military honors and recognition? The Iraq war was a historical breakthrough for many female soldiers, and at least two news outlets have chosen to include Vega as they covered this phenomenon in depth. The in-depth coverage of the specific and general context of her career and death adds encyclopedic content to the article and helps show that she is notable for more than simply being the 'first female Puerto Rican soldier to die in a war zone.' She also is objectively recognized for this by independent and reliable sources, so this fact also has notability per WP:BASIC, but the analysis seems incomplete if it only focuses on this one aspect, as if it is the only source of her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She does not have significant military honors. None of the provided RS go into any detail about her career, and I have yet to see in-depth coverage of her in particular in any of the RS cited. She is one among many, and her origin is the only thing (aside from gender) that's called out about her in coverage. Intothatdarkness 16:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marine 69-71:, that sounds a lot like wikilawyering to me. AnotherEditor144 talk contribs 17:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this proposal helps demonstrate why a standalone article for Vega is warranted - independent and reliable sources highlight her service in particular, as noted above, and she has received distinct honors, as noted above. An article on the Chinook crash may be warranted, but due to the amount of attention Vega has received from the military and sources, it seems like it would be more appropriate and readable to link from a Chinook crash article to Vega's article for additional detail. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Admittedly there's not a lot here in terms of coverage, but I think there's just enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I have added an extra source, [2], a newspaper article regarding the dedication of the Post Office named after her; the article contains some info about Vega's family background that could be added to the page. Nsk92 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:SIGCOV. I seeing citations from internal military publications but the mainstream news publications only include her name in the reporting of the crash. The Chicago Tribune article is a list of female military casualities comes from a news feed source. She was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star but that alone doesn't meet any of the eight criteria outlined in WP:MILPERSON mainly regarding, "... an important role in a significant military event." She was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Blue Riband► 17:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Although an interesting topic, she herself is not that notable as a military person. Fails WP:GNG. Additionally, page views from the last 90 days stand at 738. Page views spiked the two days following the deletion nomination (48 and 49) respectively which is an eight of the total page views it received in the last 90 days combined. High suggestion that its not a notable topic. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews are not a valid consideration for notability in any way whatsoever. Nsk92 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yes, I know it's been open 16 days, but it hasn't been relisted at any point and discussion is still taking place so I don't see what harm 7 more days will do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I don’t see GNG satisfied neither is WP:SOLDIER met. Celestina007 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:ANYBIO and is well-sourced.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references aren't that good, when you examine them. A couple of them are remembrance-type entries, several are passing mentions and several are standard notices of fellow soldiers that are fallen, but apart from that fails WP:SIGCOV. She is not well known at all. She doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER and while it is an essay and not a policy, it is universally accepted and used at Afd to set the bar and accepted by closing administrators, as an indication of notability. She was also one of several people in the helicopter, there is nothing that makes her stand out amongst her fellow soldiers, and the assertion in the lede as the first... is absurd as well. There is no policy in Wikipedia anywhere that states such an assertion. Perhaps if it was a truly unique experience it would be possible, like the first women to land on the mars. She was alive and her life did have meaning. scope_creepTalk 12:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the discussion was relisted, additional independent and reliable sources have been added, including a 2004 Los Angeles Times article that provides biographical information (which supports notability per WP:SOLDIER) and is more than a standard notice of fallen soldiers, of which there are many, and typically are simply lists of names and sometimes brief information about the circumstances of their death; an additional Chicago Tribune source with another expert, in addition to the one already included in the article, commenting on the significance of Vega and the service of her fellow female soldiers during the Iraq war; a 2003 article from El Nuevo Herald identifying Vega as one of four Puerto Rican soldiers, which is also different than a standard notice. Before the discussion was relisted, a book source was added to the article that found Vega worthy of notice as the first female soldier of Puerto Rican descent to have died in a war zone. All of these newly-added sources appear to add further objective support for WP:BASIC notability, because this is not trivial coverage and "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The assertion is made in the lede because multiple independent and reliable sources make this assertion; it is not WP:ORIGINAL. In addition, it is not the only assertion of notability, due to the significant honors Vega has also received from the military, per WP:ANYBIO, that are distinct from her fellow soldiers. Beccaynr (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reply, I lookup the LA Times article of November 4, 2003. She's mentioned in just two sentences as having been from LA and stationed at Fort Hood. Passing mention, even in highly respected news sources, does not meet our standard of WP:SIGCOV. As for the Chicago Tribune the March 11, 2004 article, it's behind a paywall but a search for the name "Vega" shows up only under her photograph which is in a line with the others killed in the incident and a mention of another soldier stationed with her. I believe what we have here are multiple independent sources reporting a helicopter crash from enemy attack that included some human interest background on the soldiers killed in that event. Per WP:ONEEVENT the general rule is to cover the event and not the person unless is becomes clear that the person had a significant and singular role in it. We also don't normally weigh opinion pieces in establishing notability. There is nothing that stands out about her military career had she not been killed. WP:SOLDIER does not have any modifying criteria for gender or ethnicity. Blue Riband► 22:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned most of this above, as well. At least two other individuals killed in the same event received similar levels of recognition, meanings hers was not singular in any real way. Intothatdarkness 02:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The latest LA Times article added is from 2004, and there are two Chigago Tribune sources now included in the article. I think that these are not passing mentions, including because the 2004 LA Times article includes biographical information, and both Chicago Tribune sources include commentary from experts that support Vega's notability. These are not trivial mentions that might otherwise exist in standard lists of soldiers killed in war; Vega is repeatedly named and discussed as part of a larger notable context, and this helps support why Vega has been distinctly honored by the military, per WP:ANYBIO. Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, The book, per WP:SELFPUBLISH is likely not a reliable source. It is a self-published book (Dorrance Publishing Company) so it shouldn't be in the article and does not count towards SIGCOV. TJMSmith (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately it looks like there isn't enough coverage of her out there to pass the normal notability guidelines and apparently the specific ones for soldiers has been depreciated. So, I don't know what's left to keep the article based on. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG based on the legacies and honors she received. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the legacies and honors don't seem to be notable. The Bronze Star medal alone does not meet the notability criteria for WP:SOLDIER. The naming of the base post office wasn't even long term as only the sign, and not the name, was relocated when the base closed. The addition of a name to a memorial for fallen military members is hardly out of the ordinary. From reading some of the editor comments here it appears that several editors rightly or wrongly are pleading, "How can you take this bio away from an ethnic minority woman who died in service to her country?" Do the sources here meet WP:GNG if this soldier was a Euro-American male? Blue Riband► 16:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, this all goes away if it's just a random white dude. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think per WP:IAR and WP:NEXIST, this article should be kept. Per WP:NEXIST, there are four independent and reliable sources that offer context about the significance of Vega's service and her military career that have been removed from the article. I apologize that my introduction of the expert opinions in the Chicago Tribune sources was clumsy; these sources both namecheck Vega and add to what was said by the Stars and Stripes source in the article about the role of women, and I think they both help address the concern raised above, and help support why this article should not go away per WP:IAR. I also think the significance of the Chinook crash discussed in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, which both also namecheck Vega, can be included to improve the article; while it may not weigh heavily towards notability, it adds encyclopedic content. In addition, the focus on Vega being the first female soldier of Puerto Rican descent to have died in a war zone has never been a subjective determination by editors, but something noted by sources, such as the DOD; she also has a main gate of a military base named in her honor with a plaque that highlights more than this fact. Beccaynr (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All your repetition does is highlight that the Chinook shootdown MAY be notable (although I think much of the coverage smacks of recentism), but does nothing to indicate that Vega was notable. Other soldiers killed in the incident have received at least as much coverage (more in one case) and received similar delayed recognition by various commands (making her recognition far less unique). The sources are mostly namechecks, and I tend to read "adds encyclopedic content" to mean padding to a thin article. I don't recall any sources that discussed her time in the military in any detail. The Bronze Star (without V device) was (as far as I can determine) awarded posthumously, and may have given to every solider killed in the shootdown (I've been able to verify at least two other awards from the same incident). Again, while this might make the shootdown itself notable (and I don't necessarily think it does), it does make Vega's award less notable than it might appear at first brush. Intothatdarkness 15:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be repetitive - I was trying to add additional rationale to what I have already stated, address changes that have been made to the article since I last commented, explain why more more robust encyclopedic content would help improve Wikipedia, and note that Blue Riband►'s recent comment didn't mention the gate or plaque, nor the sources that specifically discuss or mention Vega in the context of her being female and of Puerto Rican descent. I also don't agree that providing context and content about the circumstances of Vega's service, including in the form of expert opinions, is 'padding' - I think it would instead help improve Wikipedia. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beccaynr by my count you have made 19 comments on this AFD which is becoming WP:BLUDGEON. Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frances_M._Vega&oldid=1010018456"