Talk:Kelly Flinn

message: *During her deployment to Red Flag... 
Surely she was not communist :-). Please disambiguate & add to Red flag (disambiguation). mikka (t) 18:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope I fixed. Please verify: It seems it is Operation Red Flag (not the movie, though). mikka (t) 19:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Flag

message: Flinn isn't notable except for her involvement in the controversy surrounding her actions at Minot AFB.  Therefore, this article shouldn't be a biography, but instead should be renamed as "Kelly Flinn incident" or something like that and then merge the info from this article into that one.  I'll leave this open for discussion for a month or so before taking action. CLA 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know - a case could definitely be made for notability aside from the incident, given the fact that she was the first female B-52 pilot and a published author. Videmus Omnia 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that might be a valid point, except that I can't find anything at all on the web that has been written about her since her book was published.  She appears to have completely dropped out of sight. CLA 03:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with renaming the article.  She was notable first due to her achievement, then due to the scandal. Cleduc 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Nevertheless, I think that there can also be a separate article called something like "Kelly Flinn scandal" or Kelly Flinn incident." CLA 20:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably end up being merged here... Videmus Omnia 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree on that point.  An article on the Kelly Flinn scandal would have a chance of becoming featured because there is enough information out there to write a complete article and it is no longer a current event.  This article, however, stands very little chance of ever becoming FA eligible because, as far as I know, there hasn't been any information on the subject in secondary sources in several years.  In fact, I may start and write the Kelly Flinn Scandal article myself sometimt in the future, but it may be awhile as you can see from my "to do" list on my userpage. CLA 02:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm - you may have a point. I recently re-read Proud To Be...by renaming, we could definitely draw in the impact on the careers of Joseph Ralston and Sheila Widnall. Objection withdrawn, and I'd definitely be willing to collaborate. Videmus Omnia 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I raised my objection for this article to exist as a bio, I had forgotten that she had published a book, which probably makes her notable enough to keep this as an article.  I'm in the process of getting the Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident ready for another go at FAC review.  If I had written that article as a bio of Michael Brown, it never would have had a chance at FA.  But, by writing it about the event itself that makes Michael Brown notable, it can be complete.  I would look foward to collaborating with you on an article about the incident that helped make this subject notable.  If you decide to start the article using information from her book, let me know and I'll help add additional references through web searches. CLA 03:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, I'll dig the book back out and start flagging the facts. Videmus Omnia 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability and renaming

message: So far we have only one source for this article, and that's an opinion piece from the New York Times.  Is there any reason to believe this incident is notable, that is, that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you f***ing serious? I give a link ask you to pick a source (any of which would meet your criteria) and your response is, "well, even though I made no effort to assist in any meaningful way and you didn't jump through all the hoops, I'm still going to delete this uncontroversial information until you make sure to dot every i and cross every t." UFB! Buffs (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have NO idea on the subject and I've added references from coast-to-coast. If the references satisfy your lust for bureaucracy, awesome. If they don't, pick which ones you want. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the references recently added to the article, the incident is clearly notable.  The rest of the biography is less clear.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: User:Buffs has just moved the article from Kelly Flinn incident to Kelly Flinn.  This seems precipitate at best, since the article was moved in the opposite direction earlier this month.  There was no discussion of this reverse move here, and the stated reason article is more about her than the single incident has not yet reached any sort of consensus as the discussion above shows.  Should the article be moved yet again?  Views please.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by the move. IMNSHO, you seem to be quibbling over minutia. If you are going to have an article about the incident, a little background information is in order. The form in which it is presented is largely irrelevant. Buffs (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you hold that the article title is largely irrelevant minutiae, then presumably you have no objection to it being moved back to the consensus title, at least until such time as there is a significantly greater amount of well-sourced information about this person outside the incident in question.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article move 

message: An image used in this article, File:Flinn 1 500.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Flinn 1 500.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Flinn 1 500.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion