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 --JForget 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Compton[edit]

Non-notable. Two sources listed in the article - one a mention in a book of lists, the other on a Geocities page.

Re-Nom - last one was, as stated, a train wreck. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple sources in Google books. http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Lizzie+Compton%22 I can stick them into the article and improve it so its notable. Sound good? Asarelah (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She gets a whole chapter in this book "Women of the Civil War" [1]. Nick mallory (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical figures are pretty much by default automatically notable. People who are not notable tend to not be remembered after 150 years. Ridernyc (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article about notable individual. Mh29255 (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Numerious sources. Shoessss | Chat 14:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources. Hut 8.5 16:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of notability, too Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the better documented women who served as soldiers, though the article could use better sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2007 (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.