Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilda Clayton

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. MelanieN (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda Clayton

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

Doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER. WP:BIO1E fail. Notable for taking a photograph of the mortar that killed her (which led to quite a bit of coverage, in May 2017, when this was released), but not for much else. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She's just a non-notable soldier who died in a training accident; fails WP:SOLDIER.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My reading of WP:BIO1E is that it says we shouldn't normally have articles for both the person and the event if the person isn't independently notable. Something here pretty clearly passes the WP:GNG (I've added references from Time, The New York Times and the BBC for good measure) and we don't have an article for the event, which in any case would be difficult to give a title to. So, I think an article about the person makes perfect sense. Mortee (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph itself might be notable. It is a question whether there is WP:LASTING coverage of the photograph. The release of the photo definitely generate coverage (in a big spurt in May 2017 - some four years after her death) - however this is not WP:INHERITED by the bio.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this passes WP:GNG, second the reasons User:Mortee stated (thanks for adding references). Shameran81 (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many RS picked up the story, and it received international attention. WP:SOLDIER is a red herring; nobody is saying she had high rank or significant command responsibility or won a medal for valor. That's the typical application of SOLDIER. However, even SOLDIER says, "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." Secondary sources tell us when and where she was born and her high school; other sources add that she majored in business studies and cosmetology at Augusta Technical College; she graduated from the Defense Information School and went to the 55th Signal Company. She may not be a scholar or an extraordinary tactian, but there details about her education and military career. We are told who she married; is that enough personal life? Mortee hits the problem with WP:BIO1E on the nose: if there is an article about the event, then BIO1E says there doesn't need to be an article about the person. The first paragraph of BIO1E suggests that in this (atypical) case, the article should be about the person rather than the event. The event is not the typical soldier was killed by an IED or a faulty mortar round. The event is not just about the photograph. We have a woman soldier who took a picture of the mortar accident that killed her. She is intertwined with the event. It's not often that a photograph captures the moment, and in this event the photographer captures her own death. It's also not clear that Clayton disappears from view after this one event. Army.mil states, "Combat Camera further honored Clayton by naming the award for the winner of its annual best combat camera competition after her." That means her name may be coming up every so often. On top of that, it is likely that books about the Afgan war and combat photography will include the photograph and its story. Glrx (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that "55th Signal Company named their annual competitive award for combat camera work "The Spc. Hilda I. Clayton Best Combat Camera (COMCAM) Competition" in her honor." (taken from the article) means that she is notable (though absolutely not vital at level 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), since it is unusual that a person's partial or full name is used in the name of a particular competition, and this fact can be verified using at least one reliable source.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually quite ROUTINE for army units to name awards for fallen soldiers from the unit. A company level award being named for a person if far from notable, particularly a unit with few casulties such as the 55th signal company.Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV is met. I agree with the rational of Mortee, Glrx, and RekishiEJ in regards to WP:BIO1E. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This article does not violate WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. ROUTINE doesn't apply at all. I think BIO1E is fairly valid, but I think the event/image might be more notable and I don't know if there is a better title for an article with that subject. Further, does anyone know how many camera companies there are in the army? Looking online it seems that the "55th is the only active duty Combat Camera unit"[1], thus making a photography award named after her somewhat more significant. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smmurphy: Might make 55th Signal Company valid for an article - MILUNIT has exceptions, and army wide photography would be one of them. An article on the 55th would have more legs than a bio on a soldier killed while taking a photo and receiving coverage four years afterwards when the photo is released. No wiki article, but we do have a commons category.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are about Clayton and the photo. They mostly don't mention the company, or do so only incidentally, so they don't help show notability for it. I've no objection to a new article about the company but it would be based on different sources so I don't think it helps us decide what to do with this AfD. Mortee (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The seeming-to-be-growing meme that "Fails WP:SOLDIER, everything else is irrelevant" needs to be nipped in the bud. WP:GNG is passed, and that answer is enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: That was not the deletion rationale - not passing SOLDIER was mentioned as she was primarily a soldier. The rationale itself was failing BIO1E (while noting that the single event itself (the release of the photograph 4 years after her death) received coverage). From experience, BIO1E is a hard argument to make, particularly when gender is involved and on recent events, but it is policy. In this case this is a relatively minor event (that was "interesting" and got wide coverage) in which Clayton played a posthumous major role (not a singular role - there are some attribution questions regarding which photos she took and which photos an afghan soldier took - as well as the mortar crew itself who were casualties). As an interesting aside, she was clearly not notable until 2017 - possible notability arising from coverage well after her death.Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was more addressed towards one of the !votes than the OP, basically as 'last straw'-ing after seeing this seeming misconception pop up increasingly (with various SNGs) at AfD lately. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article passes WP:SIGCOV, as well as WP:GNG. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:15, 13 January 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.