Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammie Jo Bonnell

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 keep. Closed early per WP:SNOW. At 26 to 8, the possibility of a "delete" consensus emerging from this is nil. In terms of strength of argument, the issue is whether this is a BLP1E case, but reasonable arguments are made on both sides and it's essentially a matter of editorial judgment. This is therefore not a situation where a closer could find a "delete" consensus based on strength of argument. Sandstein 14:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tammie Jo Bonnell[edit]

Tammie Jo Bonnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject was the pilot of Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 which had an engine failure and decompression. She followed procedure and landed the plane safely. That makes her a reliable employee, not a hero, and certainly not notable. Likewise, being "one of the first female fighter pilots in the United States Navy" is not notable as others preceded her. Any biography that includes pet chickens [since deleted] and Sunday school teaching is clearly struggling for relevance. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - This AFD is using a maiden name article Tammie Jo Bonnell instead of Tammie Jo Shults. Adding this section on top of the discussion to allow editors to search properly using the built-in linked search features. Using bold fonts for visibility. Bohbye (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject clearly passes WP:BASIC as there is extensive global coverage of her specifically in numerous quality sources such as the NYT and BBC. There is detailed coverage of her in sources which pre-date the latest incident and so she has multiple claims to notability. The details of her personal life are appropriate for a fully-rounded biography and the fact that such details are available further demonstrates her notability. Note that she is being compared to Chesley Sullenberger and it would be iniquitous to delete a woman's article while keeping an equivalent man. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. WP:BASIC points out that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." That is exactly the problem here. Also, Sullenberger performed a famous feat of notably outstanding airmanship, while Bonnell's was mundane. Raising gender bias as an excuse is wholly invidious and speaks more to the subjectivity of the commentator. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See Even Sully Was Impressed by Southwest’s Emergency Landing where he explains that such events are not mundane, “It is possible now to go through an entire airline career and never experience an in-flight engine failure". Andrew D. (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In my view, this is a classic example of WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E; in fact the second paragraph of the WP:SUSTAINED description presents exactly what this person is: notable for a single event and likely to remain a low-profile individual. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply WP:BLP1E. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep for now per the above; a one-trick pony. WP:TOOSOON. I doubt that enough of notability will surface, but things are still moving too fast to make a clear call. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC) [Updated 15:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep The U.S. Navy felt that she was worthy of publicity in 1992. This is her second appearance in the news. – Maliepa (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this the source from the early 1990s?[1] It is an 1993 article in All Hands, a USN publication, about diversity in the Naval Air Forces, and quotes Shults/Bonnell but doesn't provide many details about her. Is there more somewhere else? Smmurphy(Talk) 14:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom, Maliepa, and Andrew Davidson. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The subject fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:BLP1E, as the subject is only known for this one mishap. This is the problem with Wikipedians, generally, is that in a fit of excitement they write articles about anything that pops up in the news just so they can see their narrative on a website, lacking all thoughtfulness and objectivity in the process. Let's wait five or ten years and see if anyone is writing about her in something passing WP:SIGCOV removed from this incident. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AFD is premature. News of her background is still surfacing. Per Australian Broadcasting Company, International Business Times, One of the first US Navy female fighter pilots, instructor, Lt. Commander. Her background is still surfacing, but enough is coming forward to keep this article. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The day the article is created, people are already rushing to delete it. [2] Capt. Tammie Jo (Bonnell ’83) Shults is one of the first female fighter pilots for the U.S. Navy. Searching for her as "Tammie Jo Shults", her name before marriage I assume, gets some results also, sorting through all of that now. I agree with others, more about her is coming out, no reason to rush to delete this. Many like myself will see her in the news and search Wikipedia for an article about her. Dream Focus 14:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you actually read those articles? They are just short fillers repeating the same old trivia goss, there is nothing new in them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, how fortunate for Wikipedia that AFD Chesley Sullenberger resulted in a Keep. It was listed at AFD within hours of the article being started. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable, with articles about her in high-profile newspapers. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Keep with Draft:Tammie Jo Shults I feel the article should be kept and merged with the article under development which uses her current legal name as used widely in the press. That article then can be moved into the main namespace. As for notability I think that while she is certainly now primarily notable for her actions on flight SWA 1380 in addition to that recognition of her as the first female naval aviator to fly the F/A-18 is independently notable and together make her article worth keeping. Phil (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particular about which article is kept just believe that A) the article is notable and warrants keeping and B) it is more appropriate to have her maiden name redirect to her current legal name and that receiving coverage than the other way around. While I think the Draft article could have been moved to main some time ago, this AfD itself is some evidence it wasn't the wrong decision to proceed with some deliberation. Wikipedia doesn't need to be in a rush. We just need to keep moving in the right direction :) Phil (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wonder if the subject was a male if a quick deletion request notice would’ve been issued. Bohbye (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find this comment insulting. I (and possibly most in the list of contributors above) did never consider her gender when I put forward my opinion on this AfD. As User:Maile66 noted above, the same discussion happened also for Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger's bio. By the way. I don't think that bringing an article into scrutiny regarding its notability is wrong; in fact this test makes an article stronger if it survives. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rentzepopoulos Try not to let the sun go down on feeling insulted (meaning...don't hold on to it). Wikipedia is known for having a problem with gender bias, and it's been covered in the Signpost and numerous media. It's why Wikiproject Women in Red exists. I listed the Chesley Sullenberger AFD to illustrate a different issue. That nomination came from a drive-by IP. The AFD process is flawed in that way, that the nomination can be made by anyone, whether they know anything about the subject matter, or about how Wikipedia works, or even if they're over the age of 10. I'd prefer that AFD be a process that requires an article exist for a week or so, and let CSD cover the rest. But there are probably a lot of reasons why that doesn't exist, and this is not the place to debate the system, I guess. — Maile (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rentzepopoulos The simple fact that articles related to females on wikipedia are so easily catogorised as not notable or low profile, that is insulting. This person is a pioneer in military aviation who faught hard for equality in an all male dominated military and was notable way before she was the Captain of flight 1380, and in her honor she will have equality here on wikipedia. Bohbye (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As argued above, recognition for multiple accomplishments over a span of many years means that WP:BLP1E is utterly beside the point. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BLP1E and the fact that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, see WP:NOTNEWS; further, fails WP:Soldier guidelines. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful that she fails WP:SOLDIER. She was both an EA-6B and F/A-18 instructor, which certainly satisfies "recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters". Not to mention, she was the first woman to fly an F/A-18 Hornet for the Navy. She passes WP:GNG. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable even before this week's incident - not least for being featured in the book "Military Fly Moms" - and doubly so after it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep « That makes her a reliable employee, not a hero, and certainly not notable ». A Wikipedia article is not a medal or an award that would be only "deserved" to "heroes". We have articles about hot dog vendors or groundskeepers. What makes them have articles on Wikipedia is not that they are heroes or they're reliable in their job, but there are several sources and references, in major newspaper for example, about them specifically ; so we can write a reliable and factual article about them. We're exactly in the same situation with the hero Tammie Jo Shults. --Deansfa (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons listed above. Ross-c (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the first female naval aviator to fly the F/A-18 is independently notable, BLP1E is moot ☆ Bri (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now the article documents a Congressional resolution on her actions, and Navy Times source terms her "a Navy aviation pioneer". This is neither NOTNEWS nor TOOSOON material. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since Tammie Jo Bonnell is already a re-direct (as mentioned above), if you pull up the Tammie Jo Shults article, and look for "What links here", this AFD template, as well as everything else linked to Tammie Jo Bonnell is already attached to the Tammie Jo Shults article. Also, this discussion is linked to at least one tracking tool at Wikimedia Labs, and I think moving/merging would pretty much not work with them. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell the difference between the following?
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just click the "News" link Bohbye (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link on top of the page. Bohbye (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we had two different thought lines, now that you have added those links. I believe you meant it should all be merged for the duration of this AFD. Am I correct in that? — Maile (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I first heard about her, I knew she'd pass GNG. She has a significant career before her amazing act of heroism. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple accomplishments featured over the years; first female naval aviator to fly the F/A-18. Collective Contributions (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her career and her accomplishments are emphasized in every article I've read related to the SW flight. She meets GNG. She's independently notable. .JSFarman (talk)
  • Comment If she passes GNG but doesn't pass ONEEVENT, then there should be no article, right? Was there an EVENT prior to this latest one that was really notable? No. So, if this latest event did not happen, would an article be justified? I think, no. So, she is really just notable for this one EVENT, and hence no article. Does that make sense? This should probably be a delete. Help me make up my mind because that is what I am thinking at the moment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There is no notable event before this plane accident. This plane accident makes one event. That means, per ONEEVENT, no article. Content in Southwest Airlines Flight 1380? Heck yes. Fill up a section. That's where it belongs, surely. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject passes policies such as WP:BLP1E because her role in the event was a major one and she had detailed coverage prior to the event. See Lonehexagon's analysis above which gets this right. Andrew D. (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A few specifics:
    1. WP:BLP1E and WP:1E do not apply because there is sufficient coverage in Military Fly Moms (2012) and Call Sign Revlon (1998) to show she's known for more than a single event. The standard here, in my long experience at AFD not been "two or more events each of which is separately notable", but "enough coverage to show notability based on sources referring to more than one event." The difference is subtle but important.
    2. Shults is not a low-profile individual. She has made herself the subject of a book (Military Fly Moms), she's publicly advocated Congress for female pilots (as described in Call Sign Revlon), and she's put herself the very public position of being a groundbreaking fighter pilot. As such, BLP1E point 2 does not apply, and so, BLP1E does not apply.
    3. WP:1E doesn't require merging with the event, in my view, because I've seen enough coverage (e.g., [4][5], and many similar) to warrant separate coverage. --joe deckertalk 08:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do make a pretty darn good point there, joe decker. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, I've thought about it. Joe and others make good points. I'm in the keep camp. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a counterexample, Chesley Sullenberger, the captain of US Airways Flight 1549 once also got nominated for deletion. However, due to his fame apart from the disaster, the article was finally kept. Tammie Jo Bonnell not only got famed after the incident, but also those events mentioned by other users, So I will vote for a kept.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sullenberger, who has an article here, had nothing in his life that was notable except the one incident. This woman is notable for her early role as a female combat pilot and deserves an article for that even without the recent incident. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's BLP1E not BLP2E. There's enough sources and content for a worthy BLP despite her part in the recent accident being inflated from important to central (unlike Chesley Sullenberger). Widefox; talk 12:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to argue, but just for the record, "her part in the accident" (which wasn't a part in the accident since it was mechanically-based) was far from inflated. How she handled keeping the plane from disaster was drawn from her experience as a Naval Aviator piloting three different tailhook jets but also having been a Navy jet instructor in the Wing. She didn't just land the plane, the steps she took prior to landing kept the incident from being total tragedy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Close but no cigar. She is a low-profile individual and likely to remain one. We don't have articles on pilots because they safely landed an aircraft with an engine out. She is a very capable pilot but comparing her to Chesley Sullenberger is ridiculous. The argument that she is notable in part because she got decorations from the military are weak. There are plenty of decorated ex-military pilots who have pulled off hairier landings, should we have articles on them. No. - Samf4u (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Samf4u, you might want to take a look at the other arguments for Keep and accompanying evidence that shows she would pass WP:GNG without the Southwest Airlines incident having occurred. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:43, 20 April 2018 (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/Tammie_Jo_Bonnell&oldid=837392845"